California Bitcoin

Deep Ground Bitcoin Research

deep_ground_bitcoin

PAID 0.25 USD via MPP. Produce a deeper deterministic multi-source Bitcoin research dossier across canonical topics, verdict-eligible atomic claims, contextual material, conflicting evidence, source hierarchy, exact-locator precision, temporal scope, history, and caveats. Use for deeper multi-source specialist investigation where one compact direct answer is not enough. Use when a broader multi-source dossier is required. For a compact difficult answer use answer_bitcoin_question_with_evidence instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Difficult Bitcoin research question or topic requiring deeper multi-source grounding.

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 Deep Ground Bitcoin Research. Use the documented fields exactly; unknown fields are rejected."

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "query": "How do Bitcoin Core policy and consensus differ for dust?"
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / query / examples

Added value: +[
+  "How do Bitcoin Core policy and consensus differ for dust?"
+]

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: +"Difficult Bitcoin research question or topic requiring deeper multi-source grounding."

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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses pricing ('PAID 0.25 USD via MPP'), which is real behavioral context not present in the annotations, and asserts deterministic output. Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, but the description adds no detail on latency, rate limits, or what the paid call returns when it fails.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The cost and scope lead is front-loaded, which is good, but the two consecutive 'Use for... / Use when...' sentences say nearly the same thing and could be merged. Several enumerated dossier dimensions ('source hierarchy, exact-locator precision, temporal scope, history, caveats') are padding that the output schema likely covers.

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?

With one required parameter, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description carries the remaining load well by covering cost and differentiation. Only minor gaps remain around failure behavior and how the dossier depth scales with the query.

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% for the single query parameter, so the schema already documents name, type, length bounds and semantics. The description adds no syntax, format or example detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb (produce) and a well-defined resource (a deeper deterministic multi-source Bitcoin research dossier) and enumerates its scope. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the compact-answer sibling, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.

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 conditions ('deeper multi-source specialist investigation where one compact direct answer is not enough') and names the alternative with the condition that selects it ('For a compact difficult answer use answer_bitcoin_question_with_evidence instead'). 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 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?