transactionTransaction details by txid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| txid | Yes | ||
| network | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fee | No | Transaction fee in satoshis | |
| vin | No | Input array | |
| size | No | Transaction size in bytes | |
| txid | No | Transaction ID | |
| vout | No | Output array | |
| status | No | Transaction confirmation status | |
| weight | No | Transaction weight | |
| version | No | Transaction version | |
| locktime | No | Lock time |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "txid": "1e3e4c4688992486ff5e3d4dd47e8f5f8d8f6f8f8f8f8f8f8f8f8f8f8f8f8f8f"
+ },
+ {
+ "network": "testnet",
+ "txid": "a1b2c3d4e5f6a1b2c3d4e5f6a1b2c3d4e5f6a1b2c3d4e5f6a1b2c3d4e5f6a1"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "fee": {
+ "description": "Transaction fee in satoshis",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "locktime": {
+ "description": "Lock time",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "size": {
+ "description": "Transaction size in bytes",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "description": "Transaction confirmation status",
+ "properties": {
+ "block_hash": {
+ "description": "Block hash of confirmation",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "block_height": {
+ "description": "Block height of confirmation",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "block_time": {
+ "description": "Block time of confirmation",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "confirmed": {
+ "description": "Is transaction confirmed",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "txid": {
+ "description": "Transaction ID",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "version": {
+ "description": "Transaction version",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "vin": {
+ "description": "Input array",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "scriptsig": {
+ "description": "Script signature",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "sequence": {
+ "description": "Sequence number",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "txid": {
+ "description": "Input TXID",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "vout": {
+ "description": "Output index",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "witness": {
+ "description": "Witness data",
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "vout": {
+ "description": "Output array",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "scriptpubkey": {
+ "description": "Script pubkey",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "scriptpubkey_address": {
+ "description": "Script pubkey address",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "scriptpubkey_asm": {
+ "description": "Script pubkey assembly",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "scriptpubkey_type": {
+ "description": "Script pubkey type",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "value": {
+ "description": "Output value in satoshis",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "weight": {
+ "description": "Transaction weight",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the behavioral profile is clear. The description adds no additional context like error handling, rate limits, or what happens with invalid txids. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
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?
For a low-complexity tool with an output schema, the description provides minimal but adequate context. It lacks details about the optional 'network' parameter and behavior for invalid inputs, leaving some gaps.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions the 'txid' parameter implicitly, but fails to explain the 'network' parameter or any parameter constraints. It does not add meaning beyond the parameter names.
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 'Transaction details by txid' clearly states the verb (retrieve) and resource (transaction details) with the key identifier (txid). It distinguishes from siblings like 'tx_status' and 'block' by focusing on details, but does not explicitly differentiate.
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 on when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'tx_status' or 'block'. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context for choosing this tool are mentioned.
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.