Queue a proving job -> {job_id, cost_kas}. Pass quote_id (from prove_preflight; charged the quote) or max_kas (skip preflight; priced on actual cycles, refuses if over the cap). Then poll job_status and fetch job_result. Paid: the proof's cycle-based price (dynamic).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_kas | No | ||
| image_id | Yes | ||
| quote_id | No | ||
| input_b64 | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool queues a job, returns cost, and for max_kas it refuses if over cap. Does not mention any side effects, but it is a submission tool and the behavior seems fully described.
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?
Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence is concise but uses arrow notation which might be unclear. Second sentence adds essential guidance. Well structured for quick reading.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the submission flow and price behavior. However, it omits the required image_id parameter and does not describe the return format beyond job_id and cost_kas. Adequate but not fully complete.
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?
Only two of four parameters (quote_id, max_kas) are explained in the description. The required 'image_id' is not mentioned, and 'input_b64' is also missing. Schema coverage is 0%, so description partially compensates but leaves gaps.
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?
Clearly states that the tool queues a proving job and returns job_id and cost_kas. Differentiates from siblings like prove_preflight, job_status, and job_result by mentioning the flow of using quote_id or max_kas. Could be more explicit about the verb 'submit' but sufficient.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on how to use the tool: pass either quote_id or max_kas, then poll job_status and fetch job_result. Implicitly tells when to use each option (preflight vs skip). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but covers the main usage pattern.
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.