Return one named Bitcoin entity rollup and a bounded member-address sample. coverage_status indicates whether the rollup is full, substantial, partial, or seed-only coverage; last_activity_at is label-DB activity, not last on-chain transaction time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_name | Yes | ||
| member_limit | No |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description provides important behavioral context: coverage_status definitions and clarification that last_activity_at is label-DB activity, not on-chain. Missing details on error handling or authentication, but these are acceptable for a read-only lookup.
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 that efficiently convey the core action and important field clarifications. 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?
With output schema existing, the description appropriately focuses on behavior (coverage_status, last_activity_at). It covers the key aspects for a lookup tool, though it could mention what happens if the entity is not found.
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 0%, and the description only indirectly references entity_name via 'named Bitcoin entity' and member_limit via 'bounded member-address sample'. No parameter format or constraints are explained, which is insufficient given the lack of schema descriptions.
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 action (return) and the resource (a named Bitcoin entity rollup with a bounded member-address sample). It distinguishes from siblings like entity_list (which lists all) by specifying 'one named' entity.
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?
Usage is implied: use when you need details on a specific entity. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among siblings. For a tool with many siblings, some context would be beneficial.
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.