Full detail on one provider in the service exchange by its payee pubkey: every service it lists, its chain-verified reputation (settled KAS volume + settlement count), and its payee address. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payee_pubkey | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It clearly indicates the tool retrieves information (services, reputation, address) and notes it is 'Free.' This implies a read-only, non-destructive action, though it could be more explicit about being 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?
Two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and output, while the second adds a note about cost. No unnecessary words.
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?
For a single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and key outputs (services, reputation, address). It lacks details on error cases or limits, but is sufficient given simplicity.
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?
The input schema has no description for the parameter 'payee_pubkey', and schema coverage is 0%. The description clarifies that the parameter is used to identify the provider, adding meaning beyond the raw schema.
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?
The description clearly states it retrieves full detail on one provider by payee pubkey, listing services, reputation, and address. The name 'registry_provider' aligns with this, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'registry_search' which likely searches for providers.
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?
The description specifies the input (payee pubkey) and implies usage when you have a specific pubkey and want comprehensive provider details. It mentions 'full detail' suggesting it is more thorough than alternatives, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide exclusion criteria.
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.