Return satoshidata.ai wallet/entity summaries for multiple Bitcoin addresses in one call. Forwards X-WR-API-Key/Bearer auth when present.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addresses | Yes | Bitcoin addresses to summarize, in result order. |
| 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 provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does add context about forwarding X-WR-API-Key/Bearer auth when present, which is useful. Yet it omits other important behaviors such as whether the operation is read-only, how invalid addresses are handled, or any rate limits, leaving significant gaps.
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 exactly two sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds a concise, useful note about auth forwarding, making it highly efficient.
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 existence of an output schema, return values need not be described. However, with no annotations, the description should still cover key operational constraints. It does not mention batch size limits, partial failure behavior, or any prerequisites, leaving the description adequate but with clear 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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage with a description for the 'addresses' parameter, including 'Bitcoin addresses to summarize, in result order.' The tool description adds no new meaning beyond repeating 'multiple Bitcoin addresses' and 'in one call,' so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 it 'Return[s] satoshidata.ai wallet/entity summaries for multiple Bitcoin addresses in one call,' specifying the verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like batch_intelligence and batch_risk_signals by naming the exact data type (wallet/entity summaries).
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 phrase 'for multiple Bitcoin addresses in one call' implies usage when a batch of summaries is needed, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., wallet_summary for single addresses) or state when not to use this tool.
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 tool clusters have unclear boundaries: address_evidence_pack, address_intelligence, address_risk, risk_check, wallet_detail, wallet_summary, and wallet_trust_safety all return address-related intelligence with subtle differences. Similarly, pulse_dormant, chain_awakenings, and dormancy_flushes all describe dormant-coin reactivation events, and whale_alerts overlaps heavily with pulse_whales. Agents will likely struggle to select the correct tool without deep domain knowledge.
Tool names predominantly follow a snake_case convention with domain-prefix patterns (address_*, batch_*, entity_*, mempool_*, pulse_*, timestamp_*, tx_*, wallet_*). There are minor deviations like op_return_decode (object-verb ordering) and some noun-only names, but overall the pattern is predictable and readable.
With 44 tools, this is a large surface that exceeds the 'too many' threshold in the calibration scale. While the server covers a broad Bitcoin intelligence domain, the sheer number of tools—especially with overlapping functionality—makes it feel bloated and difficult to navigate.
The tool set covers virtually every major aspect of Bitcoin intelligence: address analysis, entity rollups, mempool state, network stats, mining pools, on-chain pulse events, transaction verification, timestamping, and batch operations. There are no obvious dead ends or missing capabilities for the stated purpose.