Skip to main content
Glama
aibtcdev

aibtc-mcp-server

Official
by aibtcdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

nonce_heal

Diagnose and heal wallet nonce gaps, fill missing nonces, and optionally RBF-bump pending transactions to resolve stuck Stacks transfers. Preview actions first or execute them.

Instructions

Diagnose and heal the full nonce state for the active wallet in one shot.

Handles 90% of stuck-tx cases automatically:

  1. Fetches current nonce state from Hiro API (gaps, mempool)

  2. In dryRun mode: shows what would happen without broadcasting

  3. In execute mode (dryRun=false):

    • Fills every gap with a 1 uSTX self-transfer to the PoX burn address

    • Optionally RBF-bumps the chain head (lowest non-gap pending tx) to kick off processing

RBF bump behavior:

  • Token-transfer txs: rebuilt at same nonce with fee * feeMultiplier and rebroadcast

  • Sponsored txs: skipped with explanation (sender cannot RBF without sponsor key)

  • Contract-call txs: skipped with manual RBF instructions

Always run nonce_health first to understand the current state. Requires wallet to be unlocked for execute mode (dryRun=false).

Returns:

  • address, dryRun flag, confirmedNonce

  • gapsFound: list of missing nonces

  • actions: per-action detail (fill_gap or bump_head) with txids, fees, status

  • warnings: informational notes

  • summary: human-readable description of what happened

Tip: call earning_opportunities to see how to put your assets to work.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dryRunNoIf true (default), preview proposed actions without broadcasting. Set to false to execute.
addressNoSTX address to heal. Defaults to the active wallet address.
bumpHeadNoWhether to RBF-bump the first real pending tx (chain head) after filling gaps. Default true.
feeMultiplierNoFee multiplier for RBF bump (e.g. 1.5 = 50% higher fee). Minimum 1.1. Default 1.5.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.77.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses that execute mode broadcasts fill transactions, uses 1 uSTX self-transfers to the PoX burn address, RBF-bumps only token-transfer txs, skips sponsored and contract-call txs with explanations, and requires an unlocked wallet. It also explains the return shape and dry-run behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then structured with numbered execution modes and a clear RBF behavior section. It is somewhat long, and the final earning_opportunities tip is promotional rather than essential, but the operational content is well organized.

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?

Given a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers prerequisites, preview vs execute behavior, gap-filling mechanics, RBF edge cases, wallet unlock requirements, and the important fields returned.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters and the baseline would be 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that bumpHead targets the lowest non-gap pending tx, that feeMultiplier is applied to the RBF fee, and how dryRun controls preview versus execution.

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 and resource: diagnose and heal the full nonce state for the active wallet in one shot. It distinguishes itself from nonce_health by instructing the agent to run that tool first, and from narrower tools by saying it handles both gap filling and RBF bumping. An agent can understand its role without opening sibling 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 provides clear usage context: always run nonce_health first, use dryRun to preview, and use execute mode only when dryRun=false with an unlocked wallet. It does not explicitly compare itself to nonce_fill_gap or recover_sponsor_nonce, so the guidance is strong but not fully exhaustive about alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools