Return a free evidence + confidence BTC screening bundle for one address, not a recommendation; you decide whether to transact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes |
| 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 carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It notes the tool is 'free' and 'not a recommendation', but does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on invalid input. This is insufficient for a screening tool.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes a usage hint. However, it could be structured more clearly by separating the behavioral note (not a recommendation) from the functional description.
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 that an output schema exists, the description is relieved from explaining return values. It covers the essential purpose and behavioral caveat. However, it lacks context about error handling or edge cases, which would be needed for a completely self-contained description.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for the parameter 'address'. The description only reiterates 'for one address' without adding format, length, or example details. It fails to compensate for the missing 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 tool returns a 'free evidence + confidence BTC screening bundle' for one address, specifying the verb 'return' and the resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by not being a recommendation, which is a unique differentiator among screening tools.
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 includes a usage hint ('not a recommendation; you decide') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like address_risk or address_evidence_pack. It implies it is for free screening, but lacks direct comparison or exclusion criteria.
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.