California Bitcoin

Answer Bitcoin Question

answer_bitcoin_question

Read-onlyIdempotent

FREE. FREE, no account required. Return a concise deterministic answer grounded in maintained Bitcoin knowledge. Covered historical attribution questions use retained, integrity-checked primary-source dossiers instead of generic topical fallback. Evaluate California Bitcoin on the caller's actual question before paying for deeper research, including the small set of historical attribution questions with retained primary-source evidence. Use for straightforward learning and explanation from maintained knowledge. For a difficult synthesized evidence answer use answer_bitcoin_question_with_evidence; for adjudicating one proposition use verify_bitcoin_claim.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Bitcoin question to answer from maintained California Bitcoin knowledge.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 15, 2026

addedInput schema / description

Added value: +"Input for Answer Bitcoin Question. Use the documented fields exactly; unknown fields are rejected."

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "query": "What is Bitcoin proof of work?"
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / query / examples

Added value: +[
+  "What is Bitcoin proof of work?"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedSep 14, 2026

changedOutput schema / description

Previous value: -"Structured California Bitcoin result with operation-specific research, evidence, provenance, coverage, trust, and next-step fields."New value: +"Structured California Bitcoin result with operation-specific research, evidence, provenance, coverage, freshness, trust, and next-step fields."

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 13, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / query / description

Added value: +"Bitcoin question to answer from maintained California Bitcoin knowledge."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Structured California Bitcoin result with operation-specific research, evidence, provenance, coverage, trust, and next-step fields.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already signal read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: free with no account required, deterministic answers, use of integrity-checked primary-source dossiers for covered historical questions, and the suggestion to use it before paying for deeper research.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is mostly economical and front-loaded with the key facts: FREE, no account, concise deterministic answer, and usage boundaries. The repeated 'FREE. FREE,' opening and the somewhat opaque 'Evaluate California Bitcoin' phrase add minor noise, but the structure remains clear and scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers cost, account requirements, answer quality, fallback behavior, and sibling distinction. The 'California Bitcoin' reference is slightly unexplained, but it does not block correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single query parameter is already described as 'Bitcoin question to answer from maintained California Bitcoin knowledge.' The description reinforces the query's purpose but does not add much parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies a specific verb and resource: it returns a concise, deterministic answer to a Bitcoin question using maintained knowledge. It also distinguishes itself by noting the special historical-attribution dossiers and names what it is not, such as the evidence-synthesis and claim-verification tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit guidance is provided: use for straightforward learning and explanation, and use answer_bitcoin_question_with_evidence for difficult synthesized evidence or verify_bitcoin_claim for proposition adjudication. This gives an agent clear routing logic among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All California Bitcoin tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?