Return recent dormant-coin reactivations from satoshidata.ai's live on-chain Pulse feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| min_btc | No | ||
| min_age_years | 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'returns' data from a 'live' feed but does not disclose any limitations, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether results are real-time vs delayed. It adds minimal value beyond the obvious read-only nature implied by 'Return'.
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 sentence, front-loaded, and free of fluff. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it sacrifices completeness by omitting parameter context.
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?
Despite an output schema existing, the description fails to explain the meaning or usage of the four parameters, which control the scope of the returned data. With no schema-level descriptions, the tool is incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional inference.
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%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (limit, since, min_btc, min_age_years). The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which itself lacks descriptions. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple optional parameters.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('recent dormant-coin reactivations') sourced from a named feed (satoshidata.ai's live on-chain Pulse feed). This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinct from many siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related tools like chain_awakenings or dormancy_flushes.
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 implies usage: you would use this tool when you need recent dormant-coin reactivation data. However, it provides no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or when-to-use guidance beyond the evident purpose. The context is clear but not elaborated.
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.