Broadcast a fully signed raw Bitcoin transaction hex through satoshidata.ai.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention that broadcasting is an irreversible network write operation, potential side effects (such as the transaction being propagated and mined), authentication requirements, error conditions (e.g., invalid signature, already spent inputs), or any rate limits. The description is a bare action statement with no behavioral context.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb 'Broadcast' and delivers the core purpose without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clear and appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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 that this is a write/broadcast operation with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not disclose the irreversible nature of broadcasting, potential side effects on the Bitcoin network, authentication needs, or mention related tools like tx_status or tx_verify for verification. The simplicity of the tool is mitigated by the fact that the output schema exists, but safety and side-effect context are entirely missing.
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 schema's 'hex' parameter has no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds key semantic meaning by specifying that the hex must be a 'fully signed raw Bitcoin transaction hex', clarifying the expected format and domain of the value beyond 'string'. This is essential for correct usage, although it does not explain the exact encoding or provide examples.
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 action (broadcast), the object (fully signed raw Bitcoin transaction hex), and the channel (through satoshidata.ai). It distinguishes from sibling tools by the unique verb 'broadcast' and the specific resource of a raw transaction hex, which none of the sibling tools (mostly query/intelligence tools) perform.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. While the purpose is clear, the description does not mention that the transaction must be fully signed and ready for network propagation, nor does it direct users to related tools like tx_status or tx_verify for post-broadcast monitoring.
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.