⚠️ 注意：实验工作正在进行中
该项目处于早期实验阶段。功能可能会发生变化，API 也尚未稳定。欢迎贡献代码、提供反馈和报告错误！欢迎随时提交问题或拉取请求。
适用于模型上下文协议 (MCP) 框架的比特币 SV (BSV) 工具集合。该库提供用于 BSV 区块链交互的钱包、序数函数和实用函数。
该项目使用Bun构建，Bun 是一个快速的 JavaScript 运行时和包管理器。虽然建议使用 Bun 以获得最佳性能，但该服务器也可以使用 Node.js 和 npm 运行，因为 Bun 的设计与 Node.js 向后兼容。
macOS（使用 Homebrew）：
brew install oven-sh/bun/bunmacOS/Linux/WSL（使用安装程序脚本）：
curl -fsSL https://bun.sh/install | bashWindows： Windows 用户应该使用 WSL（Windows Subsystem for Linux）或 Docker 来运行 Bun。
Node.js 和 npm 也可以工作，但可能无法提供相同的性能优势。
Related MCP server: MNEE MCP Server
该服务器实现了模型上下文协议(MCP)，允许人工智能助手使用比特币 SV 的功能。您可以将此服务器连接到各种兼容 MCP 的客户端。
注意：
PRIVATE_KEY_WIF环境变量现在是可选的。如果没有它，服务器将以受限模式运行，仅提供教育资源和非钱包工具。钱包和 MNEE 代币操作需要有效的私钥。您还可以设置IDENTITY_KEY_WIF环境变量，以启用 sigma-protocol 对序数铭文进行签名，用于身份验证、策展和信任网络。
要将 BSV MCP 服务器与Cursor一起使用：
如果尚未安装 Cursor，请安装
打开 Cursor 并导航至“设置”→“扩展”→“模型上下文协议”
点击“添加新的全局 MCP 服务器”
以 JSON 格式输入以下配置：
{
"mcpServers": {
"Bitcoin SV": {
"command": "bunx",
"args": [
"bsv-mcp@latest"
],
"env": {
"PRIVATE_KEY_WIF": "<your_private_key_wif>",
"IDENTITY_KEY_WIF": "<your_identity_key_wif>"
}
}
}
}将<your_private_key_wif>替换为您的实际私钥 WIF（请务必妥善保管！）。如果您没有，可以暂时不填写，但您将无法使用需要钱包的工具。 <your_identity_key_wif>也是可选的。它将使用提供的身份密钥通过 Sigma 协议对 1Sat Ordinals 进行签名。
点击“保存”
BSV 工具现在将在“比特币 SV”命名空间下供 Cursor 的 AI 助手使用。
如果您更喜欢使用 npm 而不是 Bun：
{
"mcpServers": {
"Bitcoin SV": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"bsv-mcp@latest"
],
"env": {
"PRIVATE_KEY_WIF": "<your_private_key_wif>",
"IDENTITY_KEY_WIF": "<your_identity_key_wif>"
}
}
}
}要将此服务器连接到 Claude for Desktop：
打开Claude for Desktop并转到 Claude > 设置 > 开发者
单击“编辑配置”。
用你喜欢的文本编辑器打开 Claude 配置 json 文件。如果你更喜欢使用命令行方式：
# macOS/Linux
code ~/Library/Application\ Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
# Windows
code %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json将 BSV MCP 服务器添加到您的配置中：
{
"mcpServers": {
"Bitcoin SV": {
"command": "bun",
"args": [
"run", "bsv-mcp@latest"
],
"env": {
"PRIVATE_KEY_WIF": "<your_private_key_wif>",
"IDENTITY_KEY_WIF": "<your_identity_key_wif>"
}
}
}
}将<your_private_key_wif>替换为你的实际私钥 WIF
保存文件并重新启动 Claude for Desktop
单击 Claude 桌面版中的工具图标（锤子）时，BSV 工具将会出现
如果您更喜欢使用 npm 而不是 Bun，请将“命令”字段替换为“npx”。
该工具包分为几类：
钱包工具提供核心 BSV 钱包功能：
工具名称 | 描述 | 示例输出 |
| 检索指定协议和密钥 ID 的公钥 |
|
| 为提供的数据创建加密签名 |
|
| 根据提供的数据验证加密签名 |
|
| 使用钱包密钥加密和解密数据的组合工具。示例： 1. 加密文本： | 加密： |
| 返回当前钱包或派生路径的 BSV 地址 |
|
| 将 BSV 发送到指定地址（支持 BSV 或 USD 金额） |
|
| 从市场列表中购买 NFT 或 BSV-20/BSV-21 代币 |
|
| 在 BSV 区块链上创建并记录序数 |
|
与 BSV 区块链和网络交互的工具：
工具名称 | 描述 | 示例输出 |
| 从交易所 API 获取当前 BSV 价格 |
|
| 解码 BSV 交易并返回详细信息 |
|
| 全面的区块链探索工具，可访问 WhatsOnChain API 端点 |
|
在 BSV 上使用序数 (NFT) 的工具：
工具名称 | 描述 | 示例输出 |
| 检索有关特定铭文的详细信息 |
|
| 根据各种标准搜索铭文 |
|
| 使用统一界面检索 NFT、BSV-20 和 BSV-21 代币的市场列表 |
|
| 获取有关 BSV-20 和 BSV-21 代币市场销售的信息 |
|
| 通过 ID 检索特定 BSV20 代币的详细信息 |
|
通用实用功能：
工具名称 | 描述 | 示例输出 |
| 在不同的编码格式（utf8、hex、base64、binary）之间转换数据。参数： - |
|
使用 MNEE 代币的工具：
工具名称 | 描述 | 示例输出 |
| 检索钱包的当前 MNEE 代币余额 |
|
| 将 MNEE 代币发送到指定地址。支持 MNEE 和 USD 金额 |
|
| 解析 MNEE 交易，获取其操作和金额的详细信息。所有金额均以原子单位表示，精确到小数点后 5 位（例如，1000 个原子单位 = 0.01 MNEE）。 |
|
连接后，您可以通过人工智能助手使用自然语言与比特币 SV 进行交互。以下是一些示例提示：
“获取我的比特币SV地址”
“发送 0.01 BSV 到 1ExampleBsvAddressXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX”
“将价值 5 美元的 BSV 发送至 1ExampleBsvAddressXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX”
“向 1ExampleBsvAddressXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 发送 0.01 MNEE”
“检查我的 MNEE 余额”
“解析此 MNEE 交易：txid”
“使用我的钱包密钥加密此消息”
“解密之前为我加密的数据”
“购买此 NFT 列表：txid_vout”
“购买此 BSV-20 代币列表：txid_vout”
“显示有关输出点为 6a89047af2cfac96da17d51ae8eb62c5f1d982be2bc4ba0d0cd2084b7ffed325_0 的 NFT 的信息”
“搜索 Pixel Zoide NFT”
“显示 BSV NFT 的当前市场列表”
“显示代码为 PEPE 的 BSV-20 代币列表”
“获取最近的 BSV-20 代币销售信息”
“BSV 目前的价格是多少？”
“解码此 BSV 交易：（交易十六进制或 ID）”
“获取最新的比特币SV链信息”
“显示高度 800000 的区块详细信息”
“探索地址 1ExampleBsvAddressXXXX 的交易历史记录”
“检查我的钱包地址中的未使用输出（UTXO）”
“获取哈希 a1b2c3d4e5f6 的交易详细信息...”
“将‘Hello World’从 UTF-8 格式转换为十六进制格式”
BSV MCP 服务器提供专门的提示和资源，提供有关比特币 SV 技术的详细信息和背景。人工智能模型可以访问这些信息，以增强其理解力和能力。
服务器提供以下教育提示，可通过 MCP 协议直接访问：
标识符： bitcoin_sv_ordinals
描述：有关比特币 SV 序数的全面信息，包括它们是什么、如何工作以及如何使用它们。
使用方法：向助手询问“比特币 SV 序数”或“1Sat 序数”以获取此信息。
提供有关 Bitcoin SV SDK 详细信息的提示集合：
概述
标识符： bitcoin_sv_sdk_overview
描述：Bitcoin SV SDK 的概述，包括其用途和主要组件。
用法：“告诉我有关 BSV SDK 的信息”或“什么是比特币 SV SDK？”
钱包操作
标识符： bitcoin_sv_sdk_wallet
描述：有关 BSV SDK 中的钱包操作的信息。
用法：“钱包操作如何在 BSV SDK 中工作？”
交易大楼
标识符： bitcoin_sv_sdk_transaction
描述：有关交易创建和操作的详细信息。
用法：“解释 BSV SDK 交易构建”或“如何使用 BSV SDK 创建交易？”
验证
标识符： bitcoin_sv_sdk_auth
描述：BSV SDK 中的身份验证和身份协议。
用法：“BSV SDK 如何使用身份验证？”
密码学
标识符： bitcoin_sv_sdk_cryptography
描述：签名、加密和验证功能。
用法：“解释 BSV SDK 加密功能”
脚本
标识符： bitcoin_sv_sdk_script
描述：比特币脚本和合约功能。
用法：“如何使用 BSV SDK 处理比特币脚本？”
原语
标识符： bitcoin_sv_sdk_primitives
描述：BSV SDK 中的核心数据类型和结构。
用法：“BSV SDK 中有哪些原语可用？”
该服务器还提供对比特币征求意见稿（BRC）规范和文档的访问：
标识符： bsv-mcp-changelog
描述：BSV MCP 服务器的版本历史和更新日志。
用法：“向我展示 BSV MCP 更新日志”或“最新版本有什么新内容？”
BRC 概览
标识符： brcs_readme
描述：BRC 存储库中所有 Bitcoin SV 协议规范的概述。
用法：“向我展示比特币 SV BRC 概览”
BRC 摘要
标识符： brcs_summary
描述：所有比特币 SV BRC 的目录。
用途：“请给我一份比特币 SV BRC 的摘要”
具体的BRC规范
标识符： brc_spec
描述：按类别和编号访问特定的 BRC 规范。
用法：“向我展示交易信封上的 BRC 8”或“BRC 1 指定什么？”
BRC 规范分为以下类别：
钱包
交易
脚本
代币
叠加层
付款
点对点
密钥派生
出站点
观点
状态机
应用程序
AI 模型可以利用这些提示和资源，提供关于比特币 SV 技术的更准确、更详细的答案。作为用户，您可以：
询问特定主题：“告诉我有关比特币 SV 序数的信息”或“解释 BSV SDK 交易构建”
请求具体的 BRC 详细信息：“BRC 8 指定了什么？”或“向我显示交易创建时的 BRC”
获取概述：“什么是 BSV SDK？”或“显示所有 BRC 的摘要”
这些提示和资源增强了人工智能的知识库，即使对于复杂的比特币 SV 主题也能做出更技术性和更准确的反应。
当您与支持 MCP 的 AI 助手互动时：
人工智能会分析你的请求并决定使用哪些工具
经您批准后，它会调用适当的 BSV MCP 工具
服务器在 Bitcoin SV 区块链上执行请求的操作
结果返回给AI助手
助手以自然、对话的方式呈现信息
可以使用环境变量定制 BSV MCP 服务器以启用或禁用特定组件：
环境变量 | 默认 | 描述 |
|
| 设置为 |
|
| 设置为 |
|
| 设置为 |
环境变量 | 默认 | 描述 |
|
| 设置为 |
|
| 设置为 |
|
| 设置为 |
|
| 设置为 |
|
| 设置为 |
|
| 可选的身份密钥 WIF；如果设置，序数铭文将使用 sigma-protocol 进行签名，以进行身份验证、管理和信任网络。 |
|
| 设置为 |
仅使用教育资源和提示运行，无需工具：
DISABLE_TOOLS=true bunx bsv-mcp@latest仅使用 BSV 工具运行，没有钱包或其他功能：
DISABLE_PROMPTS=true DISABLE_RESOURCES=true DISABLE_WALLET_TOOLS=true DISABLE_MNEE_TOOLS=true DISABLE_ORDINALS_TOOLS=true DISABLE_UTILS_TOOLS=true bunx bsv-mcp@latest使用除钱包操作之外的所有工具：
DISABLE_WALLET_TOOLS=true bunx bsv-mcp@latest创建交易但不广播它们（试运行模式）：
DISABLE_BROADCASTING=true bunx bsv-mcp@latest如果您在使用 BSV MCP 服务器时遇到问题：
确保你的系统上安装了 Bun 或 Node.js
验证您的 WIF 私钥是否在环境中正确设置
检查您的客户端是否支持 MCP 并且已正确配置
在客户端的控制台输出中查找错误消息
保持 Bun 更新到最新版本以确保兼容性非常重要：
# Update Bun to the latest version
bun upgrade要验证您当前的 Bun 版本：
bun --version对于 Claude for Desktop，请检查以下日志：
# macOS/Linux
tail -n 20 -f ~/Library/Logs/Claude/mcp*.log
# Windows
type %APPDATA%\Claude\Logs\mcp*.log对于 Cursor，请检查设置 → 扩展 → 模型上下文协议中的 Cursor MCP 日志。
交易广播控制：添加了DISABLE_BROADCASTING环境变量，以防止交易被广播到网络
区块链浏览器：添加了bsv_explore工具，用于访问 WhatsOnChain API 并支持主网/测试网
统一工具：将wallet_encrypt / wallet_decrypt合并为单个wallet_encryption工具
增强市场：支持 NFT、BSV-20/21 代币的上架、销售和购买
性能：添加价格缓存并优化 API 端点结构
改进的验证：更好地处理私钥和参数的错误
bsv_explore工具通过 WhatsOnChain API 提供对比特币 SV 区块链的全面访问。这款强大的浏览器工具允许您查询区块链的各个方面，包括链数据、区块、交易和地址信息。
该工具支持以下端点类别和特定端点：
端点 | 描述 | 必需参数 | 示例响应 |
| 网络统计、难度和链工作 | 没有任何 |
|
| 当前链提示包括高度和状态 | 没有任何 |
|
| BSV 当前流通供应量 | 没有任何 |
|
| 已连接对等点统计信息 | 没有任何 |
|
端点 | 描述 | 必需参数 | 示例响应 |
| 通过哈希完成区块数据 |
|
|
| 通过高度完成区块数据 |
|
|
| 特定区块的标签计数统计 |
|
|
| 检索最后 10 个区块头 | 没有任何 |
|
| 检索大块的交易 ID 页 |
|
|
端点 | 描述 | 必需参数 | 示例响应 |
| 特定高度的区块统计信息 |
|
|
| 一段时间内的区块挖矿统计 | 可选： |
|
| 采矿统计数据摘要 | 可选： |
|
端点 | 描述 | 必需参数 | 示例响应 |
| 详细交易数据 |
|
|
| 原始交易十六进制数据 |
|
|
| 交易收据 |
|
|
| 在一个请求中检索多个交易 |
|
|
端点 | 描述 | 必需参数 | 示例响应 |
| 地址的交易历史记录 |
|
|
| 地址的未使用输出 |
|
|
端点 | 描述 | 必需参数 | 示例响应 |
| API 健康检查 | 没有任何 |
|
bsv_explore工具可以与自然语言提示一起使用，例如：
"Get the current Bitcoin SV blockchain information"
"Show me block #800000 details"
"Get tag count statistics for block #800000"
"Fetch transaction history for address 1ExampleBsvAddressXXXXXXXX"
"Get unspent outputs for my wallet address"
"Check transaction details for txid a1b2c3d4e5f6..."
"What is the current BSV circulating supply?"
"Show me the latest block headers"
"Get transaction IDs for page 2 of a large block"
"Show me block statistics for height 800000"
"What are the mining statistics for the last 14 days?"
"Get a summary of mining activity over the past 30 days"
"Retrieve details for multiple transactions in a single query"在底层，该工具接受参数来指定要检索的数据：
endpoint ：要查询的特定 WhatsOnChain 端点（例如， chain_info ， tx_by_hash ）
network ：要使用的 BSV 网络（ main或test网络）
特定端点所需的附加参数：
blockHash ：用于 block_by_hash 和 block_pages 端点
blockHeight ：用于 block_by_height、tag_count_by_height 和 block_stats_by_height 端点
pageNumber ：用于 block_pages 端点（分页）
days ：对于 block_miner_stats 和 miner_summary_stats 端点（默认为 7）
txHash ：用于与交易相关的端点（tx_by_hash、tx_raw、tx_receipt）
txids ：用于 bulk_tx_details 端点（交易 ID 数组）
address ：用于与地址相关的端点
limit ：address_history 的可选分页限制
该工具支持主网和测试网：
main ：比特币 SV 主网（默认）
test ：比特币SV测试网
如果您想为该项目做出贡献或在本地运行它：
克隆存储库：
git clone https://github.com/b-open-io/bsv-mcp.git
cd bsv-mcp安装依赖项：
bun install
# or with npm
npm installbun run index.ts
# or with npm
npm run startbun test
# or with npm
npm test该项目根据 MIT 许可证获得许可 - 有关详细信息，请参阅LICENSE文件。
Decodes and analyzes Bitcoin SV transactions to provide detailed insights. This powerful tool accepts either a transaction ID or raw transaction data and returns comprehensive information including inputs, outputs, fee calculations, script details, and blockchain context. Supports both hex and base64 encoded transactions and automatically fetches additional on-chain data when available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits such as supporting hex/base64 encoding, fetching on-chain data, and returning detailed insights, but lacks information on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are important for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, such as input formats and output details, but it could be slightly more streamlined by avoiding redundant phrases like 'powerful tool'.
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?
Given the complexity (1 parameter with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on return values, error cases, or performance considerations. It covers input semantics well but falls short in fully compensating for the missing structured data.
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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that 'tx' can be a transaction ID or raw data and clarifies encoding options, effectively compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions. However, it doesn't detail the structure of 'args' or provide 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('decodes and analyzes') and resource ('Bitcoin SV transactions'), distinguishing it from siblings like price checking or ordinal tools. It specifies the comprehensive insights returned, making the function unambiguous.
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 implies usage by mentioning it accepts transaction IDs or raw data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bsv_explore or other Bitcoin-related tools. No exclusions or clear alternatives are provided, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Explore Bitcoin SV blockchain data using the WhatsOnChain API. Access multiple data types:
CHAIN DATA:
chain_info: Network stats, difficulty, and chain work
chain_tips: Current chain tips including heights and states
circulating_supply: Current BSV circulating supply
peer_info: Connected peer statistics
BLOCK DATA:
block_by_hash: Complete block data via hash (requires blockHash parameter)
block_by_height: Complete block data via height (requires blockHeight parameter)
tag_count_by_height: Stats on tag count for a specific block via height (requires blockHeight parameter)
block_headers: Retrieves the last 10 block headers
block_pages: Retrieves pages of transaction IDs for large blocks (requires blockHash and optional pageNumber)
STATS DATA:
block_stats_by_height: Block statistics for a specific height (requires blockHeight parameter)
block_miner_stats: Block mining statistics for a time period (optional days parameter, default 7)
miner_summary_stats: Summary of mining statistics (optional days parameter, default 7)
TRANSACTION DATA:
tx_by_hash: Detailed transaction data (requires txHash parameter)
tx_raw: Raw transaction hex data (requires txHash parameter)
tx_receipt: Transaction receipt (requires txHash parameter)
bulk_tx_details: Bulk transaction details (requires txids parameter as array of transaction hashes)
ADDRESS DATA:
address_history: Transaction history for address (requires address parameter, optional limit)
address_utxos: Unspent outputs for address (requires address parameter)
NETWORK:
health: API health check
Use the appropriate parameters for each endpoint type and specify 'main' or 'test' network.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description lists endpoint functionalities but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify whether operations are read-only or mutative, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response formats. While it mentions 'API health check' and parameter requirements, it fails to provide comprehensive behavioral context needed for safe and effective tool invocation.
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 well-structured with categorized sections (CHAIN DATA, BLOCK DATA, etc.) and bullet points for each endpoint, making it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 19 endpoints, though some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'requires X parameter' could be streamlined). Every sentence adds value by clarifying endpoint purposes and parameter mappings, with no wasted text.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (19 endpoints, no annotations, no output schema, and nested input schema), the description is partially complete. It excels in documenting endpoints and parameter mappings but lacks behavioral details (e.g., read/write nature, rate limits) and output information. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally cover more behavioral aspects to fully guide the agent, leaving gaps in operational context.
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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explicitly maps each endpoint to required parameters (e.g., 'block_by_hash: Complete block data via hash (requires blockHash parameter)'), provides optional parameters with defaults (e.g., 'days parameter, default 7'), and clarifies parameter usage across endpoints. This compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions, making parameter semantics clear and actionable.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Explore Bitcoin SV blockchain data using the WhatsOnChain API. Access multiple data types:' followed by a comprehensive categorization of endpoints (CHAIN DATA, BLOCK DATA, etc.). It specifies the verb 'explore' and resource 'Bitcoin SV blockchain data', distinguishing it from sibling tools like bsv_decodeTransaction (decodes transactions) or bsv_getPrice (gets price data).
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: for exploring Bitcoin SV blockchain data via the WhatsOnChain API, with a list of specific endpoint types. It explicitly states 'Use the appropriate parameters for each endpoint type and specify 'main' or 'test' network.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., using bsv_decodeTransaction for transaction decoding instead of this tool's tx_by_hash).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Retrieves the current price of Bitcoin SV (BSV) in USD from a reliable exchange API. This tool provides real-time market data that can be used for calculating transaction values, monitoring market conditions, or converting between BSV and fiat currencies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | No parameters required - simply returns the current BSV price in USD |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool fetches 'real-time market data' and mentions the source ('reliable exchange API'), which adds useful context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or data freshness guarantees that would be important for a price API tool.
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 efficiently structured with two sentences: the first states the core functionality, and the second provides usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's appropriately front-loaded with the primary purpose.
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 price retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage context. However, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., numeric value, timestamp, currency pair), error handling, or data source specifics that would be helpful given the absence of structured output documentation.
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 schema description coverage is 100% and clearly states 'No parameters required - simply returns the current BSV price in USD'. The description reinforces this by not mentioning any parameters, which is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Retrieves'), resource ('current price of Bitcoin SV (BSV) in USD'), and data source ('from a reliable exchange API'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on real-time price data rather than transaction decoding, exploration, or ordinal-related functions.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('calculating transaction values, monitoring market conditions, or converting between BSV and fiat currencies'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools for similar price data needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Retrieves detailed information about a specific ordinal inscription by its outpoint. Returns complete inscription data including content type, file information, inscription origin, and current status. Useful for verifying NFT authenticity or retrieving metadata about digital artifacts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | Yes |
Does 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. It describes the return data ('complete inscription data including content type, file information, inscription origin, and current status'), which is helpful. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or performance characteristics, leaving gaps for a mutation-free but data-rich tool.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and usage context in two efficient sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick understanding.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (data retrieval with detailed output), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It outlines the purpose and return data but lacks specifics on output structure, error cases, or operational constraints, which are important for a tool with rich data returns.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying the parameter as 'outpoint' and implying its critical role in identifying the inscription, though it does not detail the format beyond what the schema provides ('Outpoint in format 'txid_vout''). For a single parameter tool, this provides adequate context, but not exhaustive detail.
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 clearly states the specific action ('retrieves detailed information') and resource ('about a specific ordinal inscription by its outpoint'), distinguishing it from siblings like ordinals_searchInscriptions (searching) or ordinals_getTokenByIdOrTicker (tokens). It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('useful for verifying NFT authenticity or retrieving metadata about digital artifacts'), providing clear context. However, it does not specify when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., ordinals_searchInscriptions for broader searches), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Retrieves detailed information about a specific BSV-20 token by its ID or ticker symbol. Returns complete token data including ticker symbol, supply information, decimals, and current status. This tool is useful for verifying token authenticity or checking supply metrics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool retrieves detailed information and returns complete token data, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state whether it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and 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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the purpose and parameters, and the second provides usage context. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing return fields or constraints.
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?
Given the complexity (1 parameter with nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and usage context but lacks details on return values, error handling, or behavioral traits. Without an output schema, it should ideally explain what 'complete token data' includes, but it doesn't. It's adequate for basic use but has clear gaps for full agent understanding.
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 description adds meaning by specifying that the tool retrieves information 'by its ID or ticker symbol,' which aligns with the two properties in the input schema (id and tick). However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no descriptions for these parameters. The description compensates somewhat by indicating what the parameters represent, but it doesn't detail formats (e.g., ID as outpoint) or usage rules (e.g., exclusive OR). Baseline is 3 as it adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving detailed information about a specific BSV-20 token by ID or ticker symbol. It specifies the resource (BSV-20 token) and action (retrieving detailed information), and distinguishes it from siblings like ordinals_getInscription or ordinals_marketListings by focusing on token data rather than inscriptions or market listings. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., bsv_explore might also retrieve data).
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 implies usage context by stating it's 'useful for verifying token authenticity or checking supply metrics,' which suggests when to use it. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bsv_explore or ordinals_searchInscriptions, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Retrieves current marketplace listings for Bitcoin SV ordinals with flexible filtering. Supports multiple asset types (NFTs, BSV-20 tokens, BSV-21 tokens) through a unified interface. Results include listing prices, details about the assets, and seller information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'retrieves' listings and includes details like prices and seller info, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as pagination handling (implied by 'offset' and 'limit' parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or the structure of returned results. For a tool with 14 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap.
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 appropriately sized at three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action and scope, the second details asset types, and the third specifies result contents. There's no redundant information, and it's structured for quick comprehension.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and result types but lacks essential context such as behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, errors), detailed parameter guidance, and differentiation from siblings. Without an output schema, the description should ideally explain return values, but it only mentions them superficially ('listing prices, details about the assets, and seller information').
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 0%, meaning all 14 parameters lack descriptions in the schema. The description compensates partially by mentioning 'flexible filtering' and listing the types of results included (prices, asset details, seller information), which hints at parameters like 'minPrice', 'maxPrice', and 'tokenType'. However, it doesn't explain the semantics of most parameters (e.g., 'id', 'origin', 'pending'), leaving many undocumented. Baseline is 3 due to some compensation but incomplete coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieves current marketplace listings for Bitcoin SV ordinals with flexible filtering.' It specifies the resource (marketplace listings) and the action (retrieves), and mentions support for multiple asset types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ordinals_marketSales' or 'ordinals_searchInscriptions', which prevents a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'flexible filtering' but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings like 'ordinals_marketSales' (which might retrieve sales history) or 'ordinals_searchInscriptions' (which might search inscriptions without marketplace context). No explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Retrieves recent sales data for BSV-20 and BSV-21 tokens on the ordinals marketplace. This tool provides insights into market activity, including sale prices, transaction details, and token information. Supports filtering by token ID, ticker symbol, or seller address to help analyze market trends and track specific token sales.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'retrieves recent sales data' and 'provides insights into market activity,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state this is a query tool with no side effects. It also doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or pagination behavior (though pagination parameters exist in the schema). The description adds some behavioral context about what data is returned but leaves significant gaps.
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 appropriately sized with three sentences that each add value: first states core purpose, second explains what insights are provided, third describes filtering capabilities and use cases. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary repetition. Some minor wordiness exists ('to help analyze market trends and track specific token sales' could be tighter).
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (8 parameters in a nested structure, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides basic purpose and filtering context but is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, default tokenType, or what 'recent' means temporally. For a sales data retrieval tool with rich filtering options, more contextual information would be helpful despite the lack of output schema.
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 description mentions filtering 'by token ID, ticker symbol, or seller address' which maps to three of the eight parameters (id, tick, address). However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented parameters (dir, limit, offset, pending, tokenType). The description adds some semantic value for three parameters but leaves five completely undocumented beyond the schema structure.
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 clearly states the tool 'retrieves recent sales data for BSV-20 and BSV-21 tokens on the ordinals marketplace' with specific verbs ('retrieves', 'provides insights') and resources ('sales data', 'BSV-20 and BSV-21 tokens'). It distinguishes from siblings like ordinals_marketListings (which likely shows current listings rather than completed sales) and ordinals_getTokenByIdOrTicker (which retrieves token metadata rather than sales data), though the differentiation could be more explicit.
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 implies usage context by stating it 'helps analyze market trends and track specific token sales' and mentions filtering capabilities, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ordinals_marketListings or bsv_getPrice. It provides some guidance through the filtering mention but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Searches for Bitcoin SV ordinal inscriptions using flexible criteria. This powerful search tool supports filtering by address, inscription content, MIME type, MAP fields, and other parameters. Results include detailed information about each matched inscription. Ideal for discovering NFTs and exploring the ordinals ecosystem.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'results include detailed information' but doesn't specify what that includes, format, or any limitations. No information about rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or pagination behavior beyond what's implied in the schema.
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?
Three sentences with zero waste - first states purpose, second enumerates capabilities, third provides usage context. Well-structured and appropriately sized for a search tool with multiple parameters. Could be slightly more front-loaded with explicit sibling differentiation.
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 complex search tool with 9 nested parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return format, error handling, performance characteristics, or provide examples. The 'detailed information' claim is too vague for an agent to understand what to expect.
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 0%, but the description compensates by listing supported filter criteria: 'address, inscription content, MIME type, MAP fields, and other parameters.' This provides meaningful context about what the args object contains, though it doesn't explain individual parameter purposes or relationships. The description adds value beyond the bare schema but doesn't fully document all 9 nested parameters.
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 clearly states the tool 'searches for Bitcoin SV ordinal inscriptions using flexible criteria' with specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like ordinals_getInscription (specific retrieval) and ordinals_marketListings (market-focused), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from potential general search tools like bsv_explore.
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 implies usage context ('ideal for discovering NFTs and exploring the ordinals ecosystem') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'powerful search tool' but provides no guidance on when to choose it over other search or retrieval tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Converts data between different encodings (utf8, hex, base64, binary). Useful for transforming data formats when working with blockchain data, encryption, or file processing.
Parameters:
data (required): The string to convert
from (required): Source encoding format (utf8, hex, base64, or binary)
to (required): Target encoding format (utf8, hex, base64, or binary)
Example usage:
UTF-8 to hex: {"data": "hello world", "from": "utf8", "to": "hex"} → 68656c6c6f20776f726c64
UTF-8 to base64: {"data": "Hello World", "from": "utf8", "to": "base64"} → SGVsbG8gV29ybGQ=
base64 to UTF-8: {"data": "SGVsbG8gV29ybGQ=", "from": "base64", "to": "utf8"} → Hello World
hex to base64: {"data": "68656c6c6f20776f726c64", "from": "hex", "to": "base64"} → aGVsbG8gd29ybGQ=
Notes:
All parameters are required
The tool returns the converted data as a string
For binary conversion, data is represented as an array of byte values
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | Yes |
Does 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. It effectively describes key behaviors: all parameters are required, returns converted data as a string, and explains binary representation. It doesn't mention error handling, performance characteristics, or side effects, but covers essential operational details.
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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, provides usage context, documents parameters with examples, and adds important notes. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded with the most important details first.
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 data conversion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering purpose, parameters, and basic behavior. The examples are particularly helpful. It could be more complete by mentioning error cases or performance considerations, but it provides sufficient context for effective use.
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 schema description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), so the description fully compensates. It clearly documents all three parameters, their required status, valid values for 'from' and 'to' (utf8, hex, base64, binary), and provides multiple examples showing exactly how to use them together.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Converts') and resource ('data between different encodings'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on data format transformation rather than blockchain or ordinal operations. The examples further clarify the exact functionality.
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 provides clear context about when to use the tool ('useful for transforming data formats when working with blockchain data, encryption, or file processing'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among sibling tools. The guidance is helpful but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0bsv_decodeTransactionbsv_explorebsv_getPriceordinals_getInscriptionordinals_getTokenByIdOrTickerordinals_marketListingsordinals_marketSalesordinals_searchInscriptionsutils_convertDataScored across 9 tools
The tools have clear domains (BSV blockchain, ordinals, utilities), but within the bsv_explore tool, many sub-endpoints (e.g., block_by_hash, address_history) are bundled under one tool, which could cause confusion as they represent distinct operations. Other tools like ordinals_getInscription and ordinals_searchInscriptions have overlapping purposes but are differentiated by specific vs. search functionality.
Most tools follow a consistent prefix_snake_case pattern (e.g., bsv_decodeTransaction, ordinals_getInscription, utils_convertData), with clear domain prefixes. However, bsv_explore is an outlier as it groups multiple operations under one name, deviating from the single-action-per-tool convention seen elsewhere.
With 9 tools, the count is reasonable for covering Bitcoin SV blockchain, ordinals, and utilities. However, the bsv_explore tool effectively bundles many sub-operations, making the actual functionality count higher than 9, which could be seen as slightly heavy but still manageable.
The toolset covers key areas: transaction decoding, blockchain exploration, price data, ordinals (inscriptions, tokens, marketplace), and data conversion. Minor gaps include lack of tools for creating or broadcasting transactions, and deeper wallet or smart contract operations, but core read-only and analysis functions are well-represented for the domain.
OpenAI-compatible LLM MCP (7 tools); chat via balance key or x402 USDC on Base
Production-grade MCP gateway delivering 8 real-time AI tools with instant x402 micropayments settled in USDC on Base Mainnet or SPL-USDC on Solana. Features Basescan contract auditing, wallet analytics, headless browser scraping, and pre-scraped oracle data feeds.
Production-grade MCP gateway delivering 8 real-time AI tools with instant x402 micropayments settled in USDC on Base Mainnet or SPL-USDC on Solana. Features Basescan contract auditing, wallet analytics, headless browser scraping, and pre-scraped oracle data feeds.
Bitcoin and YouTube video intelligence for AI agents. Pay-per-call via x402 USDC on Base.
