Satoshidata Wallet Intel

entity_list

Return named Bitcoin entity rollups, optionally filtered by category. coverage_status indicates whether each rollup is full, substantial, partial, or seed-only coverage; last_activity_at is label-DB activity, not last on-chain transaction time.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sort`	No	Entity rollup sort order.	balance
`limit`	No	Maximum entity rollups to return.
`category`	No	Optional entity category filter.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful context by clarifying that coverage_status indicates coverage levels and that last_activity_at refers to label-DB activity, not on-chain transaction time. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, rate limits) beyond schema details.

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?

Two sentences: the first clearly states the main function, and the second clarifies important return-field semantics. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool has only three optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and field clarifications, making it largely complete. It lacks usage guidance, but that is addressed in the usage_guidelines dimension.

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% for all three parameters, so the schema already provides full semantics. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond reinforcing category as an optional filter, which is already documented in the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Return') and specific resource ('named Bitcoin entity rollups'), which immediately distinguishes it from related tools like entity_lookup (single entity) and entity_categories (just category listings). The optional category filter is also mentioned.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., entity_lookup or entity_categories). The description only says 'optionally filtered by category,' which implies a use case but does not state exclusions or naming alternatives.

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?