Satoshidata Wallet Intel

chain_awakenings

Return dormant-coin awakening events over a bounded window. Supports filters for minimum dormancy age, minimum BTC value, window bounds, and result limit; forwards Wallet+ Bearer or x402 payment headers when present.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum rows to return.
`since`	No	Window start as block height, ISO date/time, or relative Nd value. Defaults to last 24h.
`until`	No	Window end as block height, ISO date/time, or now. Defaults to now.
`cursor`	No	Integer pagination cursor returned by the previous page.
`format`	No	Response format.	json
`min_btc`	No	Minimum BTC value of the spent dormant UTXO.
`address_filter`	No	Comma-separated Bitcoin address watchlist filter.
`min_dormancy_days`	No	Minimum untouched age of the spent UTXO.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	No
`error`	No
`endpoint`	Yes
`status_code`	Yes

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful note about forwarding Wallet+ Bearer or x402 payment headers, indicating authentication/payment behavior. However, it does not mention read-only behavior, rate limits, or pagination traits, leaving gaps.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single sentence that packs the core purpose and key behavioral note without redundancy. Every clause contributes meaning, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool has a rich input schema and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the primary purpose, filter categories, and header forwarding. It slightly lacks context on what constitutes an 'awakening event', but overall is adequate given the structured metadata.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters. The description briefly summarizes filters (dormancy age, BTC value, window bounds, limit) but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns dormant-coin awakening events over a bounded window, specifying the resource and action. It does not explicitly distinguish from related siblings like dormancy_flushes or pulse_dormant, but the focused phrasing is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description implies usage for querying dormant-coin events but does not help an agent choose between this and similar sibling tools.

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

All Satoshidata Wallet Intel tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?