Return a narrow Bitcoin transaction state check: unknown, mempool, conflicted, or confirmed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| txid | 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation by using 'Return', and it discloses the output states. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., invalid txid), network requirements, or whether the check is local or remote, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.
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 that front-loads the purpose and lists all output states. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it concise and well-structured.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, simple state check) and the presence of an output schema (which presumably defines the return states), the description is largely complete. It communicates the essential behavior and output options, though it could benefit from a brief note on error handling or relation to sibling tools.
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 has one parameter (txid) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not directly explain the parameter format or semantics beyond the tool's own name and the phrase 'Bitcoin transaction'. This provides minimal compensation for the lack of schema description, but it does not explicitly clarify that txid is the transaction ID or its expected format.
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 purpose: 'Return a narrow Bitcoin transaction state check' with explicit possible states (unknown, mempool, conflicted, confirmed). The verb 'Return' and resource 'Bitcoin transaction state check' are specific, and the word 'narrow' distinguishes it from more comprehensive transaction tools like mempool_tx or tx_verify.
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 a lightweight, narrow usage via the word 'narrow', and the enumerated states clarify what to expect. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when full transaction details are needed, use mempool_tx), nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
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.