Satoshidata Wallet Intel

wallet_flow_graph

Return a render-ready transaction-flow graph for a Bitcoin wallet address.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hops`	No	Maximum graph hop depth.
`view`	No	Optional response view. Set `view=compact` for a smaller agent-oriented payload.
`since`	No	Only include transactions at or after this ISO timestamp.
`address`	Yes	Bitcoin wallet address to graph.
`min_btc`	No	Minimum BTC value for an edge candidate to appear. Default 0.1 BTC is a value-flow display filter; use min_btc=0 for ownership or attribution analysis.
`direction`	No	Transaction-flow direction to include: incoming, outgoing, or both.	both
`node_limit`	No	Maximum graph nodes to return.
`include_labels`	No	Include label/entity context for graph nodes when available.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	No
`error`	No
`endpoint`	Yes
`status_code`	Yes

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the output is 'render-ready,' implying format readiness but not addressing read-only status, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description does not explain how parameter interactions affect the graph (e.g., min_btc as a filter), leaving behavioral ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it appropriately sized and easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is sufficient only for a basic understanding of the tool's purpose. It lacks usage context, alternative comparisons, and behavioral details that would be necessary for an agent to fully leverage this tool, despite the rich schema and output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already described. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema; the only hint is 'render-ready,' which relates to output, not parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool's function: 'Return a render-ready transaction-flow graph for a Bitcoin wallet address.' The verb 'Return' and resource 'transaction-flow graph' are specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like wallet_summary or address_evidence_pack, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selecting this over other wallet/address tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Satoshidata Wallet Intel tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?