SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Bitcoin large transactions in the latest block

crypto_whale_alert_transfers

Read-only

Bitcoin large transactions in the latest block from mempool.space: total output in BTC, fee, txid and block height, filtered by minBtc. Bitcoin only (no ETH or SOL). Covers the first 25 transactions of the tip block; output total includes change, so it is transaction size, not one wallet's transfer. Takes about 14 s; allow a 30 s timeout. Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_btc_whale_txs when you need Large Bitcoin transactions: every transaction of the latest; crypto_circle_cctp_transfers when you need Circle CCTP fast-burn allowance and the fee tiers for one. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "crypto_whale_alert_transfers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	How many transactions to return, 1 to 25 (default 10)
`minBtc`	No	Minimum total output in BTC, 0.01 to 10000 (default 1)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No
`source`	No
`blockHash`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`transfers`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly and open-world; the description adds the operationally important facts: coverage limited to the first 25 transactions of the tip block, change included in totals, ~14 s runtime with a 30 s timeout allowance, and the $0.002 x402 USDC charge on success only with failed calls free. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before invoking a paid, slow call.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with what the tool returns and the Bitcoin-only scope, then alternatives, then cost and latency. Nearly every sentence earns its place, though the phrase introducing related tools is slightly wordier than needed and the sentence is dense.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, yet the description still names the key returned fields; it also covers scope limits, latency, timeout budget, pricing and failure charging. For a paid, rate-limited data call with two optional params, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining that minBtc filters on total transaction output and that change is included, i.e. it measures transaction size not a wallet transfer. The 25-transaction ceiling also contextualizes the limit parameter's upper bound.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (large Bitcoin transactions in the latest block from mempool.space) along with the returned fields (total output BTC, fee, txid, block height) and the filter. It explicitly disambiguates from the near-named sibling by noting the output total includes change, so this is transaction size rather than a single wallet's transfer.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly scopes the tool: Bitcoin only (no ETH or SOL), and names two alternatives with the condition that selects each (crypto_btc_whale_txs for every transaction of the latest block, crypto_circle_cctp_transfers for CCTP allowance/fee tiers). The agent does not have to infer routing.

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

All SiteCheck Crypto & Finance tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?