getSatRangesForUTXOReturn the ordinal-numbered sat ranges contained in a single UTXO (the satoshi-by-satoshi composition). Useful for ordinal theory analysis and rare-sat lookups.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| utxoId | Yes | UTXO reference in 'txid:vout' form (e.g. 'a1b2...:0'). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool safe (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), lowering the burden. The description adds the detail of 'satoshi-by-satoshi composition', which is a behavioral trait, but it doesn't disclose other aspects like rate limits or output format. This aligns with the baseline for well-annotated tools.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function in the first sentence and use cases in the second. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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 well-described parameter and clear annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns and why it's useful, so an agent can select and invoke it correctly.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains that utxoId is in 'txid:vout' form. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, 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 the tool returns 'ordinal-numbered sat ranges contained in a single UTXO', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rareSatsForUTXO by emphasizing the full composition rather than just rare sats.
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 explicit use cases ('ordinal theory analysis and rare-sat lookups'), providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
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.