satoshidata — Bitcoin entity intelligence

chain_awakenings

Return dormant-coin awakening events over a bounded window. Supports filters for minimum dormancy age, minimum BTC value, window bounds, and result limit; forwards Wallet+ Bearer or x402 payment headers when present.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum rows to return.
`since`	No	Window start as block height, ISO date/time, or relative Nd value. Defaults to last 24h.
`until`	No	Window end as block height, ISO date/time, or now. Defaults to now.
`cursor`	No	Integer pagination cursor returned by the previous page.
`format`	No	Response format.	json
`min_btc`	No	Minimum BTC value of the spent dormant UTXO.
`address_filter`	No	Comma-separated Bitcoin address watchlist filter.
`min_dormancy_days`	No	Minimum untouched age of the spent UTXO.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	No
`error`	No
`endpoint`	Yes
`status_code`	Yes

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It mentions forwarding Wallet+ Bearer or x402 headers, which is a behavioral trait, but does not disclose other important aspects such as rate limits, idempotency, or side effects. A more comprehensive description is expected.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long with no extraneous information. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and key capabilities, earning a maximum score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, output schema exists), the description adequately covers the main functionality. The output schema is present, so return values need not be explained. A slight improvement could mention pagination (cursor), but schema already does.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema by summarizing filter capabilities. Since schema coverage is high, a score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves dormant-coin awakening events with specific filters. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dormancy_flushes by focusing on awakening events over a bounded window.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pulse_dormant or dormancy_flushes. It implies usage for querying awakening events but lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All satoshidata — Bitcoin entity intelligence tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count3/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?