Return mining-pool attribution by block height/hash, known pool name, or candidate payout address. Block identifiers use /v1/blocks, pool names use /v1/pools/{pool_name}, and addresses use wallet trust-safety.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | No | ||
| pool_name | No | ||
| block_hash | No | ||
| block_height | No |
| 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the routing behavior (block identifiers use /v1/blocks, etc.) and hints that pool names must be 'known' and addresses are 'candidate payout addresses'. However, it does not disclose whether exactly one parameter must be provided, how conflicts are handled, or any failure modes. This is a moderate level of transparency.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The first sentence states the action and acceptable inputs; the second adds routing details. There is no redundant or missing information.
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 presence of an output schema and the description's coverage of purpose, parameters, and routing, the tool is largely well-documented. Minor gaps include the lack of explicit statement that only one lookup mode should be used at a time (though the 'or' implies it) and absence of error-condition information. Overall, it is complete enough for most lookup scenarios.
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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter type: 'block height/hash' for block_height and block_hash, 'known pool name' for pool_name, and 'candidate payout address' for address. It also provides additional context about the underlying endpoints for each identifier type. This gives the agent a strong understanding of what each parameter means and how to choose among them.
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 identifies the tool as returning mining-pool attribution with a specific verb 'Return' and resource 'mining-pool attribution'. It outlines three distinct lookup modes (block height/hash, pool name, address), which differentiates it from sibling tools like pool_detail or pool_list that focus on pool metadata rather than attribution.
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 description gives clear context on when to use the tool: whenever attribution by block identifier, pool name, or address is needed. It explains how different identifier types correspond to underlying endpoints. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, so it falls short of the highest score.
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.