Returns full transaction details: inputs with addresses and values, outputs with spent status, fee, size/weight, SegWit flag, and Lightning Network channel correlation. Supports both confirmed and mempool transactions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| txid | Yes | Transaction ID (64 hex characters) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it as readOnly and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it supports both confirmed and mempool transactions and includes Lightning Network channel correlation. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action ('Returns full transaction details'), and every listed detail is valuable. No fluff or 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 no output schema, the description lists the key returned fields, which is helpful. It covers both confirmed and mempool transactions, but does not mention error behavior (e.g., invalid txid) or the exact response structure until fields. Still adequate for a simple lookup tool.
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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the txid parameter with pattern and examples, so the description need not add much. The description's mention of mempool support gives a hint about acceptable txid states, but it doesn't elaborate on parameter syntax beyond the schema.
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 verb 'Returns' and specifies the resource ('full transaction details') with a comprehensive list of fields (inputs, outputs, fee, size/weight, SegWit, Lightning). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bitcoin_address_transactions or bitcoin_transaction_spends, which focus on different aspects.
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 the tool is used to fetch detailed information for a specific transaction ID, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. Context is clear but there are no exclusions or references to sibling 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.
Several tools overlap heavily, e.g., ip_blocklist_check, ip_reputation, and ip_threat_intel all provide IP threat/blocklist data, while domain_reputation, domain_blocklist_check, and domain_ranking overlap on domain reputation. This creates ambiguity in tool selection.
Tool names follow no single convention. Some use domain prefixes (domain_*, ip_*), others use lookup_* or reverse_lookup_* prefixes, and a few are standalone (ping, registered_domain). The mixed styles make it hard to predict the name for a given operation.
With 46 tools, the server is heavily oversized. It spans many unrelated areas (Bitcoin, Lightning, DNS, IP, MAC, email), making the toolset unwieldy for agents to navigate and choose from efficiently.
The toolset is remarkably complete for a network intelligence and lookup service, covering ASN, IP, domain, DNS, Bitcoin, and Lightning with a wide range of query types, including historical reverse lookups. Minor gaps like missing domain WHOIS or IP CIDR calculation are not significant.
