Return satoshidata.ai wallet/entity summaries 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 summarize, 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses auth forwarding but does not mention if the operation is read-only, rate limits, or failure behaviors.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by an important auth note. No redundant 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?
Given the simple tool (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It explains the batching capability and auth forwarding, leaving return details to the output schema.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter definition.
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 returns summaries for multiple Bitcoin addresses in one call, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling batch tools by focusing on 'wallet/entity summaries'.
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 implies usage for batching multiple addresses but does not provide explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives. It mentions auth forwarding but lacks differentiation from similar batch 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.
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.