Skip to main content
Glama

California Bitcoin

by org.californiabitcoin
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Build Bitcoin Timeline

build_bitcoin_timeline
Read-onlyIdempotent

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses a cost ('PAID 0.10 USD via MPP') and describes the temporal semantics and evidence quality guarantees of the output. This is genuinely useful information that cannot be inferred from readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, or the schema.

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 compact and efficiently front-loads the cost and core function before giving usage boundaries. There is a minor redundancy between 'Use for chronological...' and 'Use when chronology is the primary output,' but each sentence otherwise earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With a full input schema, annotations, and an output schema present, the description supplies the missing decision and cost context: when to invoke it, what the output emphasizes, and that it is a paid but non-destructive read-only operation. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, including examples and bounds, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. The description adds only the general notion of 'query-specific' chronology, which is consistent with the query parameter but does not meaningfully exceed the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Build a query-specific chronological Bitcoin research timeline') and clarifies what the output distinguishes: event dates, source dates, effective dates, source-level support, exact locators, and re-verification boundaries. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling research tools, which are not timeline-focused.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('chronological protocol or history questions where ordering and temporal semantics are the primary job') and when not to use it ('Do not use for a general explanatory answer where dates are incidental'). This gives an agent a clear decision rule for selecting it versus the answer-oriented sibling tools.

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