addressAddress summary (chain + mempool stats).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| network | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | No | Bitcoin address | |
| chain_stats | No | Chain statistics | |
| mempool_stats | No | Mempool statistics |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "address": "1A1z7agoat4JpiLvH5NNRZTweLaqLFJ5d"
+ },
+ {
+ "address": "tb1qw508d6qejxtdg4y5r3zarvary0c5xw7kxpjzsx",
+ "network": "testnet"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "address": {
+ "description": "Bitcoin address",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "chain_stats": {
+ "description": "Chain statistics",
+ "properties": {
+ "funded_txo_count": {
+ "description": "Funded output count",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "funded_txo_sum": {
+ "description": "Funded sum in satoshis",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "spent_txo_count": {
+ "description": "Spent output count",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "spent_txo_sum": {
+ "description": "Spent sum in satoshis",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "tx_count": {
+ "description": "Total transaction count",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "mempool_stats": {
+ "description": "Mempool statistics",
+ "properties": {
+ "funded_txo_count": {
+ "description": "Mempool funded count",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "funded_txo_sum": {
+ "description": "Mempool funded sum",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "spent_txo_count": {
+ "description": "Mempool spent count",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "spent_txo_sum": {
+ "description": "Mempool spent sum",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "tx_count": {
+ "description": "Mempool transaction count",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, providing comprehensive safety and behavior information. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating it provides a 'summary'. It does not contradict the annotations, so a score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal value beyond structured fields.
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 very short and front-loaded, which is good for readability. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices necessary content. For a tool with two parameters and an output schema, a slightly more detailed description would be warranted without being verbose. It earns a 3 because while concise, it is under-specified.
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 the tool's complexity (2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return values or parameter details, leaving the agent with many unknowns. The description should provide more context to be complete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. However, it only mentions 'address' and 'network' implicitly through the examples. The description does not clarify the meaning of these parameters or their expected formats, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance to correctly invoke the tool.
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 'Address summary (chain + mempool stats)' clearly identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving a summary of address data including chain and mempool statistics. It specifies both the verb 'summary' and the resource 'address', which is sufficiently distinct from sibling tools like 'address_txs' that focus on transactions.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling 'address_txs' suggests a related use case, but the description does not distinguish between them or inform the agent about appropriate scenarios for choosing this tool over others.
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.
The tool set includes multiple near-identical tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and several overlapping entity/profile tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim) that make it hard for an agent to choose the right one. The Bitcoin-specific tools are isolated and don't integrate well with the rest, creating two separate domains.
Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use snake_case (ask_pipeworx, fee_estimates), some use underscores (polymarket_edges), and others are standalone verbs (remember, recall, forget). No consistent pattern is followed across the tool set.
With 39 tools, the server is overstuffed for its stated purpose ('Blockstream Info'). The Bitcoin blockchain tools are only 7, while the rest are a sprawling external data platform (Pipeworx) with many redundant tools, making the number feel excessive and unfocused.
For a Bitcoin-oriented server, the blockchain tools cover basic operations (address, block, transaction, fee_estimates) but miss essentials like UTXO queries or block details. Meanwhile, the Pipeworx tools dominate and are overcomplete for a server that should be lightweight. The mismatch leaves the Bitcoin part incomplete.