USE THIS to verify a Bitcoin address before sending funds or storing it — do not assume it is valid. Checks Base58Check (P2PKH/P2SH, double-SHA256 checksum) and Bech32/Bech32m SegWit (bc1…, incl. Taproot), and returns the address type and network. A bad checksum means a mistyped address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | The Bitcoin address (legacy 1…/3… or bech32 bc1…). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description details the validation algorithms (Base58Check, Bech32/Bech32m) and the consequence of bad checksum, which is beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. No contradiction.
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 well-structured sentences. Front-loaded with purpose and imperative usage, 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 tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the operation, formats checked, and return information. No gaps: it covers what, why, and output hints.
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 has 100% coverage with a description, but the description adds context about accepted formats (legacy 1…/3… or bech32 bc1…) and the return value (type and network), adding value beyond the 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?
Clearly states the tool verifies a Bitcoin address, listing specific formats and return of type/network. Distinguishes from sibling validation tools by being Bitcoin-specific.
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?
Imperative 'USE THIS' indicates when to use, and provides a caution about assuming validity. However, no explicit comparison to alternative tools, though the specificity naturally guides usage.
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 specific identifier or operation (e.g., validate_iban, parse_date, is_holiday). Even similar tools like validate_isbn and validate_isbn10 are distinct by version. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (validate_xxx, parse_xxx, format_currency). The exception is 'next_holiday', which uses an adjective instead of a verb. Otherwise consistent.
With 47 tools, the set is very large. While each tool is distinct, the count exceeds the recommended range (25+ is considered too many) and may overwhelm users or agents.
Covers a wide array of international identifiers and utilities, but notable gaps exist (e.g., no Canada SIN, India PAN, Mexico CURP). The set is broad but not exhaustive for the domain of data validation.