Skip to main content
Glama

California Bitcoin

by org.californiabitcoin
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Build Bitcoin Timeline

build_bitcoin_timeline

PAID 0.10 USD via MPP. Build a query-specific chronological Bitcoin research timeline that distinguishes event dates, source dates, effective dates, source-level support, exact locators, and maintained re-verification boundaries. Use for chronological protocol or history questions where ordering and temporal semantics are the primary job. Use when chronology is the primary output. Do not use for a general explanatory answer where dates are incidental.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of sourced timeline events to return.
queryYesBitcoin event, topic, protocol change, policy, or history question to organize chronologically.
toYearNoOptional latest calendar year to include in the timeline.
fromYearNoOptional earliest calendar year to include in the timeline.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / description
      Added value: +"Input for Build Bitcoin Timeline. Use the documented fields exactly; unknown fields are rejected."
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "fromYear": 2015,
+    "limit": 20,
+    "query": "History of SegWit activation",
+    "toYear": 2018
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / fromYear / examples
      Added value: +[
+  2015
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / examples
      Added value: +[
+  20
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / query / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "History of SegWit activation"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / toYear / examples
      Added value: +[
+  2018
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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."
  3. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / fromYear / description
      Added value: +"Optional earliest calendar year to include in the timeline."
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"Maximum number of sourced timeline events to return."
    • addedInput schema / properties / query / description
      Added value: +"Bitcoin event, topic, protocol change, policy, or history question to organize chronologically."
    • addedInput schema / properties / toYear / description
      Added value: +"Optional latest calendar year to include in the timeline."
    • 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"
+}
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds material context beyond them: the tool is paid ('PAID 0.10 USD via MPP') and maintains re-verification boundaries. It does not clarify what readOnlyHint=false means for a research tool, but the pricing disclosure is the key behavioral trait and is present.

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?

Front-loads the pricing constraint, then the purpose, then usage guidance and the exclusion, which is good ordering. The list of temporal distinctions is dense but each clause is load-bearing; only slight tightening is possible.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations plus the pricing disclosure cover the operational profile. Usage, scope, and cost are all present; only the readOnly=false semantics for a research tool are left unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (limit, query, toYear, fromYear) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Build a query-specific chronological Bitcoin research timeline') and articulates what makes it distinct: the temporal distinctions (event dates, source dates, effective dates, re-verification boundaries). An agent can differentiate it from answer_bitcoin_question or get_bitcoin_topic without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('chronological protocol or history questions where ordering and temporal semantics are the primary job') and an explicit when-not ('Do not use for a general explanatory answer where dates are incidental'), which implicitly routes to the general-answer siblings. Nothing is left to inference.

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

All California Bitcoin toolsInspect
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