getAlkaneAddressUTXOsGet the UTXOs for a given Bitcoin address. This includes tokens, NFTs, contracts, and any other type of alkane.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bitcoinAddress | Yes | The Bitcoin address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context that the UTXOs include tokens, NFTs, contracts, and other alkanes, clarifying the asset scope beyond the name. It does not specify edge cases like whether all UTXOs or only alkane-bearing ones are returned, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.
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?
Two concise sentences with the verb and resource front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.
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 read-only tool with one parameter and rich annotations, the description provides enough context about what is returned. It could be more explicit about whether only alkane-bearing UTXOs are returned, but the name clarifies that, and no output schema is needed for this level of simplicity.
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 provides a description for the single parameter ('The Bitcoin address') with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional format, validation, or context beyond what the schema already gives, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 it retrieves UTXOs for a Bitcoin address, specifically those related to alkanes, including tokens, NFTs, contracts, and other types. This distinguishes it from siblings like getUtxoRunes (runes) and getBTCBalances (BTC balances).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getAlkaneAddressBalance or getUtxoRunes. The description simply states what it does without any exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With 113 tools spanning many chains and asset classes, there is substantial overlap. For example, listPositions and getAllPositions appear to serve the same function, and there are many balance, token discovery, and collection data tools that differ mostly by chain or protocol, making misselection likely.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: most tools use camelCase with a verb (baseGetBalances, ethSwapQuote), but some use underscores (nansen_defi_portfolio), others are just bare nouns (wallet, rugcheck), and there are irregularities like solanaBalances instead of solanaGetBalances, plus hederaTokensSwapQuote vs. baseSwapQuote.
The server exposes 113 tools, far beyond the typical well-scoped set. This is an extreme mismatch with the apparent purpose of a wallet/swap server, making discovery and selection difficult for agents.
While the server offers extensive read-only data (balances, market data, NFTs, positions), it lacks core write operations: there is no actual swap execution or token transfer tool, and the referenced emblemCreateVault tool is missing. These are significant gaps that will prevent agents from completing common wallet actions.