getStampsByAddressList the Bitcoin Stamps and SRC-20 token balances held by a given Bitcoin address. Returns each held stamp's ID + asset name and SRC-20 holdings with amounts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bitcoinAddress | Yes | Bitcoin address (Counterparty-compatible) whose stamp holdings to retrieve. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying the exact return values (stamp IDs, asset names, SRC-20 amounts). It does not cover potential edge cases like empty results or address validation, but for a simple read tool with strong annotations this is adequate.
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 filler. It states the action, resource, and return content efficiently.
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?
With one simple parameter and no output schema, the description explains the primary return data sufficiently. It lacks details like exact response structure or potential errors, but given the tool's simplicity and strong annotations, it is reasonably complete.
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 covers 100% of the parameter, clearly explaining what to provide (a Counterparty-compatible Bitcoin address). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 a specific action ('List') and resource ('Bitcoin Stamps and SRC-20 token balances held by a given Bitcoin address'). It also details the returned data (stamp ID + asset name, SRC-20 holdings with amounts), distinguishing it from sibling tools like getInscriptionsByAddress or getRuneBalances.
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 use: when you need stamp/SRC-20 balances for a specific address. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specific resource and input make its use case unambiguous among the many address-balance tools.
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.