Generate a Merkle inclusion proof that a patron's balance was included in a Bitcoin-notarized snapshot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| npub | Yes | The patron's Nostr public key (npub1...). | |
| notarization_id | Yes | The notarization record ID. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, nor does it mention any prerequisites or error conditions. The word 'Generate' could suggest mutation, though it likely just computes a proof, leaving the safety profile unclear.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without any redundant or extraneous information. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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?
The tool is relatively simple with two well-documented parameters and an output schema. However, the description omits important context such as the requirement that a notarization must already exist, and it doesn't clarify the relationship to 'request_npub_proof' or 'receive_npub_proof'. This leaves some practical gaps, though the presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values.
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 already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (npub and notarization_id), covering 100% of the schema. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema fields already state, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 the tool's function: generating a Merkle inclusion proof for a patron's balance in a Bitcoin-notarized snapshot. It uses a specific verb ('Generate'), identifies the resource ('Merkle inclusion proof'), and provides context, making it distinct from sibling tools like list_notarizations or request_npub_proof.
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 usage is implied by the name and parameter requirements (a notarization_id and npub) but not explicitly stated. It does not mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor any prerequisites like an existing notarization. The description leaves the agent to infer the appropriate context.
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 targets a distinct operation and domain (account, posts, coupons, credentials, scheduling, oracle, etc.), with clear differentiation even for similar-sounding tools like check_balance vs check_authority_balance or list_coupons vs list_my_coupons. There is no ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_post, delete_coupon, list_posts), with no mixing of styles. The excalibur_ prefix is uniform.
With 72 tools, the server far exceeds the typical well-scoped range (3–15). While the functionality is broad, the sheer number feels excessive for a single MCP server, leading to an extreme mismatch.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for core domains: CRUD for posts, snippets, coupons, credentials; complete flows for OAuth, npub proof, scheduling, notarization, and payments. No obvious gaps are present.