Return satoshidata.ai's free Bitcoin wallet trust and safety teaser for a single address, including the examined marker when no clear category matched.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | 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 carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does add value by mentioning the 'examined marker when no clear category matched' and labeling the output as a 'free teaser,' which hints at limitations. However, it does not address authorization, rate limits, or what the teaser includes/excludes beyond the marker behavior, leaving notable gaps given the lack of annotations.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and target. Each clause adds meaningful information: the purpose, the single-address scope, and the marker behavior. There is no redundant or filler language, making it highly 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?
The tool is relatively simple with one parameter and an output schema, so return value details are likely covered elsewhere. However, the description does not define what a 'teaser' entails or how this tool fits among sibling wallet/risk tools, leaving the agent reliant on guesswork. The marker behavior is a positive addition, but the overall context remains incomplete.
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 has a single 'address' parameter with no description, and the tool description provides no additional semantic detail about address format, validation, or network. Though the description references 'a single address,' it does not clarify how the parameter should be supplied or what constraints exist, so it fails to compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.
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 specifies a clear action ('Return') and resource ('wallet trust and safety teaser for a single address'), giving the tool a defined purpose. It distinguishes from batch operations by explicitly stating 'single address,' but the term 'teaser' is somewhat underspecified and it does not directly name alternative tools, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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 phrase 'for a single address' implies the use case, but the description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as batch_trust_safety, risk_check, or wallet_detail. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the choice to the agent without support.
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.