Execute a guest WITHOUT proving: exact cycle count + a signed price quote {total_cycles, price_kas, quote_id, quote_expires}. Run this first — proving cost scales with cycles by orders of magnitude. Paid (~$0.002).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| image_id | Yes | ||
| input_b64 | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description discloses paid nature and non-proving execution, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., state mutation, credit consumption) or whether it's read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (two sentences), front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description mentions output fields. However, lacks parameter explanations and error handling details, which are needed for full self-containment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. Description does not explain the two parameters (image_id, input_b64) or their purpose, missing critical guidance for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'execute a guest WITHOUT proving' and specific output (cycle count, price quote). Distinguishes from siblings like prove_submit by emphasizing it's a pre-flight step.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises 'Run this first' with rationale about proving cost scaling, and mentions cost (~$0.002). Does not explicitly name alternatives, but implication is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that prevent ambiguity. Even within related domains (e.g., covenant operations, proving steps), the functions are well-separated and described.
Most tools follow a verb_noun or noun_noun pattern with underscores, but there are some single-verb names like 'catalog' and 'classify'. Within subdomains naming is consistent (e.g., kaspa_*, covenant_*, prove_*). Minor deviations prevent a perfect score.
36 tools is on the high side for a typical MCP server, but the broad scope (blockchain, payments, ZK proving, text processing, search, registry) justifies the count. It borders on being too large for easy navigation but remains reasonable.
The server covers a wide range of functionalities with no critical gaps for its stated domain. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct Kaspa send transaction tool), but the covenant tools provide a workaround. Overall, the surface is fairly complete.