anchain-data-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_address_stats

Retrieve statistical insights for a blockchain address, including transaction volume, frequency, and behavioral patterns. Provide protocol and address to assess risk.

Instructions

Retrieve statistical insights for a blockchain address, including transaction volume, frequency, and behavioral patterns.

Args: proto: Blockchain protocol (btc, eth, xlm) address: Blockchain address to analyze (e.g. bc1qm34lsc65zpw79lxes69zkqmk6ee3ewf0j77s3h)

Cost: 100 credits

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "proto": "<proto>",
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "get_address_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`proto`	Yes
`address`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a read ('retrieve'), specifies the output scope (transaction volume, frequency, behavioral patterns), and explicitly states the cost (100 credits). It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but for a read tool this is reasonably transparent.

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?

The description is concise: two sentences for the purpose plus a compact arg list and cost. It is front-loaded and every sentence contributes, with no redundant filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers the core purpose and both parameters, and the presence of an output schema covers return values. It is complete enough for basic invocation, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus the many sibling address tools, and does not mention error behavior.

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

Parameters5/5

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 does so effectively: 'proto' lists valid values (btc, eth, xlm) and 'address' provides a concrete example. This adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieve statistical insights for a blockchain address, including transaction volume, frequency, and behavioral patterns.' The verb 'retrieve' combined with the resource 'blockchain address' and the specific statistics distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_address_label or get_address_risk_score.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for statistical analysis of addresses but does not explicitly provide when-to-use vs alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or point to sibling tools, so the guidance is only implicit.

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