California Bitcoin

Deep Ground Bitcoin Research

deep_ground_bitcoin

Read-onlyIdempotent

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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: the tool is paid ('PAID 0.25 USD via MPP'), deterministic, and produces a detailed dossier rather than a lightweight answer. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense and front-loads the action and cost, followed by usage guidance. The two 'Use for...' / 'Use when...' clauses are somewhat redundant, and the long clause list in the first sentence could be tightened, but there is no real filler.

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 complex research-dossier tool, the description covers purpose, cost, output scope, and the key alternative. An output schema exists, so not describing the return structure is acceptable. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, and the single 'query' parameter is documented as a difficult Bitcoin research question requiring deeper multi-source grounding. The description largely repeats that framing without adding format, constraints, or extra semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Produce') and resource ('a deeper deterministic multi-source Bitcoin research dossier') and enumerates what it contains. It also distinguishes itself from a compact-answer sibling by name ('For a compact difficult answer use answer_bitcoin_question_with_evidence instead').

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?

It gives explicit conditions: use when a broader multi-source dossier is required or a compact direct answer is insufficient, and names the alternative for the compact case. This leaves little ambiguity about when to choose it.

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?