Return satoshidata.ai address-intelligence cards for multiple Bitcoin addresses in one call. Forwards X-WR-API-Key/Bearer auth when present.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addresses | Yes | Bitcoin addresses to enrich, in result order. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| endpoint | Yes | ||
| status_code | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations available. Description only notes auth forwarding and return of cards, missing details on safety, side effects, rate limits, or error handling expected for a batch read operation.
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 sentences with zero waste. First sentence states core function, second adds auth behavior. Well-structured and efficient.
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?
Adequate for a simple batch tool with one parameter and output schema present. Lacks details on ordering guarantee, invalid address handling, or batch size limits, but sufficient for typical 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'addresses' parameter. Description adds no further semantics, so baseline 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?
Clearly states it returns address-intelligence cards for multiple Bitcoin addresses in one call, distinguishing it from single-address alternatives like address_intelligence.
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?
Implicitly for batch use but lacks explicit comparison to siblings or conditions like when not to use (e.g., single address). No guidance on prerequisites or limitations.
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.
Multiple tools cover similar address intelligence (e.g., address_intelligence, address_risk, risk_check, wallet_summary) and dormant coin detection (pulse_dormant, dormancy_flushes, chain_awakenings), causing potential confusion despite descriptive names. Some overlap exists but descriptions help differentiate.
Tools use snake_case and generally follow a verb_noun or noun_verb pattern (e.g., address_evidence_pack, batch_intelligence, fees_recommended). However, a few tools like submit_feedback and verify_timestamp start with verbs, while others start with resources, causing minor inconsistency.
44 tools is high for a wallet intelligence server, covering many subdomains (address, batch, blockchain, mempool, mining, timestamping, etc.). While each tool has a specific purpose, the count feels heavy and could be consolidated, but it's not extreme given the broad scope.
The tool set thoroughly covers Bitcoin wallet and on-chain intelligence: address lookup, risk, evidence, batches, blocks, mempool, fees, mining pools, timestamping, transaction broadcast/verification, pulse feeds, whales, and more. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.