California Bitcoin

Get Bitcoin Evidence Pack

get_bitcoin_evidence_pack

Read-onlyIdempotent

PAID 0.15 USD via MPP. Build a focused Bitcoin evidence package when the agent already knows what it is researching and primarily needs compact source material, atomic claims, conflicts, source authority, exact-locator precision, caveats, provenance, and temporal scope. Collect supporting, conflicting, and contextual evidence around one focused Bitcoin research question without asking California Bitcoin to compose the final specialist answer. Use when the caller needs supporting, conflicting, and contextual evidence around a focused target, rather than a verdict or narrative dossier.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Bitcoin research question or topic for which to assemble an evidence pack.

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 Get Bitcoin Evidence Pack. Use the documented fields exactly; unknown fields are rejected."

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "query": "Bitcoin Core replace-by-fee policy"
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / query / examples

Added value: +[
+  "Bitcoin Core replace-by-fee policy"
+]

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 research question or topic for which to assemble an evidence pack."

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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a cost signal ('PAID 0.15 USD via MPP') and clarifies that the tool emits evidence components rather than a final narrative answer, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the cost signal before moving into purpose and usage. It is slightly redundant, repeating 'supporting, conflicting, and contextual evidence' and using 'focused' multiple times, but it remains reasonably tight and readable.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, expected evidence content, cost, and what it will not do. Nothing critical for tool selection or correct invocation is missing, and the output schema handles return-value details.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The single query parameter is fully described in the schema (coverage 100%), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds value by emphasizing that the query should be a focused research question the agent already knows, which helps agents scope their input appropriately.

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 names a concrete deliverable ('focused Bitcoin evidence package') and enumerates its contents: source material, atomic claims, conflicts, source authority, exact locators, caveats, provenance, and temporal scope. It also distances itself from tools that produce final specialist answers or narrative dossiers, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like answer_bitcoin_question and verify_bitcoin_claim without opening their schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives explicit when-to-use conditions: the agent already knows the research target and primarily needs compact, focused evidence rather than a synthesized verdict. It also provides when-not-to-use signals ('rather than a verdict or narrative dossier', 'without asking California Bitcoin to compose the final specialist answer'), though it does not name alternative sibling tools explicitly.

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?