Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bitrovas-psbtcheck

bitrovas-psbtcheck

by bitrovas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

psbt_check

Check an unsigned Bitcoin PSBT before signing to verify recipients, amounts, change, fee rate, RBF, sighash, UTXO details, dust, and address-poisoning lookalikes; returns ok/warn/danger verdict.

Instructions

Bitrovas PSBT-Check: prüft eine UNSIGNIERTE Bitcoin-PSBT vor dem Signieren (Empfänger, Beträge, Change, Gebühr/sat/vB, RBF, Sighash, UTXO-Infos, Dust, Address-Poisoning-Lookalikes). Kostet 21 sats (Lightning). Mit NWC-Wallet wird automatisch bezahlt und das Ergebnis (verdict ok|warn|danger + JSON + Text DE/EN) zurückgegeben; ohne Wallet kommt status=payment_required mit bolt11 – nach Zahlung psbt_check_result aufrufen. Signiert und sendet nie etwas.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "psbt": "<psbt>"
    },
    "name": "psbt_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payNofalse = nie automatisch zahlen, nur Rechnung zurückgeben
psbtYesunsignierte PSBT v0, base64 oder hex
stampNoBericht zusätzlich mit Bitcoin-Zeitstempel belegen (+21 sats, total 42)
networkNo
transportNonip17
expected_addressNoerwartete Empfängeradresse (optional)
expected_amount_satsNoerwarteter Betrag an diese Adresse in sats (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the monetary cost (21 sats, 42 with stamp), the payment mechanism, the failure mode and its status code, the output shape (verdict ok|warn|danger + JSON + DE/EN text), and an explicit safety guarantee ('Signiert und sendet nie etwas'). That is an unusually complete behavioral profile.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with purpose and scope before the payment mechanics and the safety guarantee. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical checklist of checks is long enough to slow scanning slightly.

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 7-parameter paid tool with no output schema, the description covers what is checked, cost, payment flow, return format, and post-payment handoff. Minor gaps remain: whether repeated calls re-charge, and how the optional expected_address/expected_amount_sats affect the verdict.

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 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters, including pay and stamp. The description reinforces the payment behavior tied to the 'pay' parameter but says nothing about network, transport, expected_address, or expected_amount_sats, so it adds only marginal 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('prüft eine UNSIGNIERTE Bitcoin-PSBT vor dem Signieren') and enumerates exactly what is inspected (recipients, amounts, change, fee, RBF, sighash, UTXOs, dust, address poisoning). The caps-lock on UNSIGNIERTE immediately separates it from psbt_check_result, which handles the post-payment result.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger (before signing), an explicit payment branch (NWC wallet → auto-pay, no wallet → status=payment_required with bolt11), and names the exact follow-up action ('nach Zahlung psbt_check_result aufrufen'). The only sibling is named together with the condition that selects it.

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