Submit a SHA-256 digest to satoshidata.ai's Bitcoin timestamping batch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash_hex | Yes |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a write operation ('submit') and the target system, but does not describe side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or prerequisites. It conveys the basic nature of the operation but lacks depth for a mutation tool.
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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter, output schema present) and the description covers the core action. However, it lacks context about the workflow—e.g., whether a prior quote is needed via sibling tools like timestamp_quote, or what happens after submission (confirmation, async processing). With no annotations, this gap reduces completeness.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that the hash is a 'SHA-256 digest', which clarifies the expected content for the `hash_hex` parameter. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., 64 hex characters) or encoding, leaving some ambiguity. The schema itself only provides a title, so the description provides partial value.
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 states the tool's action: 'Submit a SHA-256 digest' to a specific destination ('satoshidata.ai's Bitcoin timestamping batch'). It uses a specific verb ('submit') and resource ('SHA-256 digest'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like timestamp_quote or verify_timestamp by focusing on the submission step.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you want to submit a SHA-256 hash for Bitcoin timestamping. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the action is unambiguous. Since it doesn't say 'use this instead of X' or mention prerequisites, it falls short of a 5.
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.