decode_psbtDecode a Bitcoin PSBT (base64/hex) or raw transaction hex offline to inspect inputs, outputs, addresses, script types, fees, signatures, and BIP-32 paths.
Decode a Bitcoin PSBT (base64/hex) or raw tx hex offline: inputs, outputs, addresses, script types, fee, fee rate, signatures, BIP-32 paths.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| psbt | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds that decoding happens offline, which is useful behavioral context (no network call), but it does not disclose error handling, supported PSBT versions, or other operational traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; it efficiently lists the decoded fields after stating the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields (inputs, outputs, addresses, fee, signatures, BIP-32 paths). Combined with the readOnly annotation, this is nearly complete for a decoder, though it lacks error-case expectations or PSBT version support.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single psbt parameter has no description and 0% schema coverage, so the description carries the burden. It specifies that the input can be a base64/hex PSBT or a raw tx hex string, which adds essential format meaning beyond the bare 'string' type, though it could be more explicit about requiredness and examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb, resource and scope: decode a Bitcoin PSBT (base64/hex) or raw tx hex offline, and enumerates the decoded fields. It is largely distinguishable from Ethereum decoders by Bitcoin/PSBT specificity, but it does not explicitly name the sibling decode_transaction or explain which to use for raw tx hex.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implies usage by specifying accepted input formats and that decoding runs offline, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives like decode_transaction. An agent must infer suitability from the tool name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.