Skip to main content
Glama

California Bitcoin

by org.californiabitcoin
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Verify Bitcoin Claim

verify_bitcoin_claim
Read-onlyIdempotent

PAID 0.10 USD via MPP. Evaluate one specific Bitcoin factual proposition against verdict-eligible maintained atomic claims and return a conservative supported, contradicted, mixed, partially verified, or insufficient-evidence verdict with source-backed evidence metadata. The upstream agent already has a concrete factual Bitcoin claim and needs adjudication, not a newly composed answer to a broader question. Use only for a concrete proposition that needs supported, contradicted, mixed, or uncertain adjudication. Do not use for open-ended explanation or general evidence collection.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claimYesBitcoin factual claim to verify against maintained source-linked evidence.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / description
      Added value: +"Input for Verify Bitcoin Claim. Use the documented fields exactly; unknown fields are rejected."
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "claim": "BIP324 makes Bitcoin peer connections anonymous."
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / claim / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "BIP324 makes Bitcoin peer connections anonymous."
+]
  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. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / claim / description
      Added value: +"Bitcoin factual claim to verify against maintained source-linked evidence."
    • 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 already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond this: the tool returns a 'conservative' verdict, includes 'source-backed evidence metadata,' and is paid via 'MPP.' These details help the agent understand the operation's constraints and cost.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is dense but efficient: each sentence adds a distinct piece of information — cost, function, context, and exclusions. The most important operational constraint ('Use only for concrete proposition') appears clearly, and there is no redundant filler.

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 single-parameter tool with a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete. It defines the input type, the adjudication scope, the verdict vocabulary, the output metadata, and the non-use cases. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the single 'claim' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that the claim must be 'one specific Bitcoin factual proposition,' which is mildly useful but does not add substantial meaning beyond 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Evaluate one specific Bitcoin factual proposition against verdict-eligible maintained atomic claims' and specifies the exact verdict types returned. It also differentiates itself from composing broader answers or collecting general evidence, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling tools.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use context: 'The upstream agent already has a concrete factual Bitcoin claim and needs adjudication.' It also states clear exclusions: 'Do not use for open-ended explanation or general evidence collection.' It stops short of naming which sibling tool to use instead, so it is not a full 5.

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