Return free evidence + confidence BTC screening bundles for up to 100 addresses, not recommendations; you decide whether to transact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addresses | Yes | Bitcoin addresses to screen, 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 transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is free, returns evidence and confidence scores rather than advice, and leaves the transaction decision to the user. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not cover operational details like rate limits or pagination.
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, front-loaded sentence that packs in the action, resource, limit, and a key disclaimer. Every part earns its place; there is no redundant or vague language.
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?
For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it specifies the input limit, the nature of the output, and the non-recommendation boundary. It could be improved by explicitly naming sibling alternatives to reduce ambiguity, but given the simple interface, it is sufficient.
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 describes 'addresses' as 'Bitcoin addresses to screen, in result order' with 100% coverage. The description adds the constraint 'up to 100 addresses,' which is not in the schema description. This supplemental limitation helps the agent validate input size before invoking.
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 the verb 'Return' and specifies the resource as 'free evidence + confidence BTC screening bundles for up to 100 addresses.' It clearly distinguishes from recommendation tools by stating 'not recommendations; you decide whether to transact.' This makes the purpose immediately clear, even without comparing to sibling names.
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 for screening up to 100 Bitcoin addresses, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like risk_check or batch_risk_signals. There is no 'when-not-to-use' guidance or explicit alternative naming. Usage is implied from the batch size and 'not recommendations' stance.
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.