Load an OpenTimestamps proof from hex data or a file path to verify Bitcoin blockchain timestamps.
Load an OTS proof from hex data or file path
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| otsData | Yes | OTS proof data (hex string or file path) | |
| isFilePath | No | Whether otsData is a file path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that it loads a proof. It does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies state, what happens on invalid input, or any auth/rate-limit constraints.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately communicates the action, resource, and input source.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate to invoke it. However, with no annotations and no usage or behavioral context, it leaves important gaps about when and how to use it relative to sibling proof tools.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description's phrase 'from hex data or file path' mirrors the schema and adds no extra syntax, format, or default details beyond it.
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 ('Load') and resource ('OTS proof') and clarifies the input source ('hex data or file path'). It is clear enough for an agent to know what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_proof_info or verify_proof.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_proof_info or get_full_proof. It only describes the accepted inputs, leaving usage context entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.