getBRC20ActivityReturn the BRC-20 token transfer history for a given Bitcoin address (deploys, mints, transfers, sends, receives) with timestamps and amounts. Paginated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 1-indexed page number for activity pagination. | |
| bitcoinAddress | Yes | Bitcoin address whose BRC-20 activity to retrieve. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe profile is covered. The description adds the pagination behavior and specifies the types of activity included, providing context beyond the structured annotations. No contradiction exists.
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 that conveys the core purpose and key output details without waste. Every clause adds value: the resource, address, activity types, and pagination.
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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (activity types, timestamps, amounts) and pagination. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's behavior, though it could optionally mention field details or maximum page size.
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 covers both parameters (bitcoinAddress and page) at 100% coverage with descriptions. The tool description adds only 'Paginated' which hints at the page parameter but provides no additional semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already documents the 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource ('BRC-20 token transfer history for a given Bitcoin address'). It enumerates activity types (deploys, mints, transfers, sends, receives) and includes timestamps and amounts, fully distinguishing it from sibling tools like getInscriptionActivity or getRunesActivity.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need BRC-20 transfer history for a Bitcoin address. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5. The context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
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.