Bitcoin-MCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.5.1
Disambiguation3/5
Many tools have distinct purposes (e.g., analyze_block vs. get_block_stats), but significant overlap exists in analysis and retrieval functions. For example, analyze_transaction, get_indexed_transaction, and search_blockchain (for txid) all provide transaction details with varying enrichment levels, which could confuse an agent about which to use. Similarly, multiple fee-related tools (estimate_smart_fee, get_fee_estimates, compare_fee_estimates) serve similar but nuanced purposes, creating ambiguity.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun or verb_adjective_noun pattern (e.g., analyze_block, get_address_balance, estimate_smart_fee), with clear action-oriented prefixes. However, there are minor deviations like compare_blocks (verb_noun) vs. get_fee_recommendation (verb_adjective_noun), and some tools use slightly different verb styles (e.g., explain_inscription_listing_security vs. analyze_psbt_security), but overall the naming is readable and predictable.
Tool Count2/5
With 48 tools, the set is excessively large for a single server, likely overwhelming for agents and indicating poor scoping. While Bitcoin is a broad domain, many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple fee estimation tools) or split into specialized servers. This high count suggests feature bloat rather than a focused, coherent interface.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive for Bitcoin operations, covering analysis, retrieval, transaction handling, network monitoring, and utilities like price checks and security explanations. It includes CRUD-like actions (e.g., send_raw_transaction for create, various get_* for read), lifecycle coverage (from mempool to confirmed blocks), and niche features (e.g., PSBT security), leaving no obvious gaps for the domain.
Average 3.9/5 across 48 of 48 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 2 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 6, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only lists returned metrics. It fails to disclose error behavior (invalid height), whether the operation is safe/read-only, rate limits, or data freshness. The 'raw' qualifier adds minimal 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Efficiently front-loaded with the specific metrics enumerated. The Args section is clear though slightly structurally separated from the main sentence. No redundant or wasteful text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a single-parameter query tool where an output schema exists (per context signals). The description appropriately lists the specific statistics returned. However, it lacks completeness regarding error cases, valid height ranges, or behavioral constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage (only title and type). The description compensates by explicitly documenting the 'height' parameter as 'Block height', adding necessary semantic meaning that the schema lacks.
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?
States specific verb (Get) and resource (block statistics) with concrete metrics listed (median fee, total output, subsidy, weight, tx count). The term 'raw' and specific metric list help distinguish it from sibling 'analyze_block' which likely provides interpreted analysis rather than raw data points.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus siblings like 'analyze_block', 'compare_blocks', or 'get_block_count'. No mention of prerequisites or conditions where this tool is preferred over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it lists prediction outputs, it fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: that predictions are based on current mempool state, whether the operation is read-only/safe, if results are cached or real-time, or prediction confidence intervals.
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 a single, efficiently structured sentence that front-loads the action verb 'Predict' and uses a colon-delimited list for outputs. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the zero-parameter schema and existing output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description adequately covers core functionality. However, for a prediction tool, it lacks operational context regarding data sources (mempool) and prediction methodology that would be necessary without annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters. Per evaluation guidelines, 0-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to describe beyond the empty schema.
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 states the tool predicts the 'next block' and enumerates specific prediction targets (transactions, weight utilization, miner revenue, fee percentiles, top-fee txs). The 'next block' scope distinguishes it from sibling 'analyze_block' (likely historical) and 'analyze_mempool' (current state), though it doesn't explicitly clarify this distinction.
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 like 'analyze_mempool' (which likely provides input data) or 'estimate_smart_fee'. There are no prerequisites mentioned regarding node synchronization or mempool data availability required for accurate predictions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the tool performs a lookup/check but doesn't describe the return format (boolean vs UTXO details), what constitutes 'unspent' versus 'spent', or error cases (e.g., if the transaction doesn't exist). With zero annotation coverage, this lacks necessary 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief with no wasted words. The structure separates the purpose statement from parameter definitions using an 'Args:' section. While functional, the docstring-style formatting is slightly less polished than natural language integration, preventing a perfect score.
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?
For a simple 2-parameter lookup tool with an existing output schema (per context signals), the description provides sufficient context. The Args section compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, and the output schema presumably handles return value documentation, making this complete enough for the complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage (neither txid nor vout have schema descriptions), the description compensates by providing 'Transaction hash' and 'Output index' semantics in the Args section. This adds essential meaning missing from the structured schema, though it could further clarify format expectations (e.g., hex string for txid, 0-indexed integer for vout).
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 states the tool checks if a specific transaction output is unspent, using the specific verb 'Check' and resource 'transaction output/UTXO'. It implies specificity by mentioning 'specific transaction output' (txid+vout), distinguishing from address-based queries like sibling get_address_utxos, though it doesn't explicitly name that alternative.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It fails to mention that get_address_utxos is preferred when querying by address, while this tool is for checking specific outpoints. No prerequisites, error conditions, or usage constraints are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the valid range for confirmation target (1-1008 blocks), but lacks other behavioral details such as what algorithm 'smart' estimation uses, whether results are cached, rate limits, or output format details (though output schema exists).
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?
Extremely concise with zero waste. The two-part structure (purpose statement followed by Args documentation) efficiently delivers necessary information in minimal space. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a single-parameter tool with existing output schema. The description covers the parameter well and states basic purpose, but gaps remain in sibling differentiation and behavioral disclosure given the lack of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Excellent compensation for 0% schema description coverage. The Args section clearly defines 'conf_target' as 'Number of blocks for confirmation' and provides the valid range (1-1008), adding critical semantic meaning absent from the schema's bare 'Conf Target' title.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the core action ('Get fee estimate') and target ('specific confirmation target'), but fails to distinguish from four sibling fee tools (get_fee_estimates, estimate_transaction_cost, get_fee_recommendation, compare_fee_estimates). It does not explain what makes this estimation 'smart' or when to prefer it over alternatives.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus the four alternative fee estimation tools available. No prerequisites, error conditions, or usage constraints are mentioned beyond the implicit parameter range.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core operation (decoding and opcode breakdown) but fails to disclose safety properties (read-only vs. destructive), execution time characteristics, or whether the tool performs validation on the script. Given it has an output schema, return values need not be described, but disposition hints are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with clear front-loading of the primary purpose in the first sentence. The Args section follows a standard docstring format that efficiently maps parameters to descriptions. No sentences are wasted, though the structure relies on the Args section to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter analysis tool with an output schema, the description covers the minimum required information. However, given the lack of annotations and zero schema coverage, it lacks contextual completeness regarding safety guarantees (critical for blockchain tools), error handling behavior, or links to Bitcoin Script specifications that would aid an agent in successful invocation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must fully compensate for parameter documentation. The Args section provides 'Script in hex format' for hex_script, which adds basic type context beyond the schema's title field. However, this is minimal—it does not specify expected length, format constraints (e.g., must be even-length hex), or examples of valid Bitcoin Scripts.
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 states the tool 'Decode[s] a Bitcoin Script hex and break down the opcodes,' providing specific verbs (decode, break down), resource (Bitcoin Script hex), and distinguishing detail (opcodes) that differentiates it from sibling tools like decode_raw_transaction. However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this versus analyze_transaction or other decoding tools.
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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as decode_raw_transaction or analyze_transaction. It lacks prerequisites, expected input formats beyond 'hex,' or exclusions that would help an agent select this tool correctly in a workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds valuable Bitcoin-specific context that 2016 blocks equals ~2 weeks (difficulty adjustment period), explaining the averaging behavior. However, lacks details on return format, rate limiting, or computational cost despite having no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Appropriately brief with front-loaded purpose statement followed by Args section. Two sentences efficiently convey essential information without redundancy, though 'Args:' formatting is slightly technical.
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?
Adequate for a single-parameter statistical getter where output schema exists (no return value description needed). The ~2 weeks context provides sufficient domain context for Bitcoin operations, though mentioning what specific statistics are returned (TPS, volume, etc.) would strengthen completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates effectively for 0% schema description coverage by explaining nblocks semantics ('Number of blocks to average over') and the significance of the default value (2016 = ~2 weeks). Could improve by mentioning valid ranges or edge cases, but adequately documents the single parameter.
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?
Clear verb ('Get') and resource ('transaction rate statistics') with scope ('over N blocks'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_block_stats by specifying 'transaction rate' rather than general block data, though could explicitly contrast with chain analysis alternatives.
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?
Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_block_stats or analyze_block. The default value explanation (2016 = ~2 weeks) implicitly suggests usage patterns but lacks explicit 'when-to-use' or prerequisite guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates key constraints (fixed 140 vB calculation basis, categorized by urgency labels, comparative format), but omits details like specific urgency tiers, data sources, or safety characteristics (e.g., read-only status).
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 single-sentence description is optimally front-loaded with the action verb and efficiently packs essential behavioral details (side-by-side, urgency labels, 140 vB) without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on behavioral specifics (140 vB assumption) rather than return values. It sufficiently covers the necessary context for a stateless comparison tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, which establishes a baseline score of 4 per the rubric. The description appropriately requires no additional parameter clarification.
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 uses specific verbs ('Compare') and resources ('fee estimates'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_fee_estimates' or 'estimate_smart_fee' by specifying 'side-by-side' presentation, 'urgency labels', and the fixed '140 vB' transaction size assumption.
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?
While the description implies a comparison use case through 'side-by-side', it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like 'get_fee_estimates' (raw data) or 'estimate_transaction_cost' (custom sizes), nor does it state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully communicates the key trait that this performs local decoding without UTXO validation ('without looking up inputs'), but lacks other critical behavioral context such as error handling for malformed hex, whether the operation is read-only/safe, or performance characteristics. It meets the minimum for a stateless decoding operation but does not go beyond.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief for a single-parameter tool, with no filler content. The 'Args:' section, while slightly informal for MCP standards, serves a functional purpose given the zero schema coverage. The core description is front-loaded and immediately actionable, though the parameter documentation could be integrated more smoothly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a single simple parameter and an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe return values in text), the description is minimally complete. However, for a Bitcoin-related tool with siblings that perform similar functions, it should explicitly note that this is a safe, non-destructive read operation to prevent confusion with send_raw_transaction, especially since no annotations indicate safety properties.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage (only the generic title 'Hex String'). The description compensates effectively by specifying that hex_string represents a 'Raw transaction in hex format,' providing necessary semantic context that the schema lacks. It could be improved by noting format constraints (e.g., 'without 0x prefix') or providing an example, but it adequately covers the single parameter.
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 states the core action (decode a raw transaction hex) and includes the crucial scope qualifier 'without looking up inputs,' which effectively distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like analyze_transaction that likely query blockchain state. It loses one point for not explicitly clarifying what 'raw transaction hex' means in the Bitcoin context for agents unfamiliar with the domain.
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 phrase 'without looking up inputs' implicitly suggests usage for offline analysis or unbroadcast transactions, but the description fails to explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like analyze_transaction (when blockchain validation is needed) or send_raw_transaction (when broadcasting). No explicit 'when not to use' guidance is provided despite the presence of similar sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses dual-currency output (sats/USD) and comparative urgency analysis features, but omits methodological details like data sources (mempool-based?), specific urgency tiers (high/medium/low?), or whether estimates are real-time vs cached.
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 efficiently structured in two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core functionality (cost estimation in dual currencies) and uses the second sentence for value-add features (savings comparison), making every word earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 optional parameters and an output schema (indicated in context), the description adequately covers the core functionality. However, given the complexity of fee estimation and the lack of schema documentation, it should mention that results vary by current network conditions or specify what 'urgency levels' means.
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?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by enumerating the four supported address types (p2pkh, p2sh-p2wpkh, p2wpkh, p2tr) for the address_type parameter. However, it completely omits semantic explanations for input_count and output_count, leaving two-thirds of the parameters undocumented.
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 states the tool estimates Bitcoin transaction costs in both sats and USD at different urgency levels, with specific mention of address type support. It distinguishes itself from simple fee estimators by mentioning 'how much you save by waiting,' though it could more explicitly differentiate from siblings like estimate_smart_fee or get_fee_recommendation.
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 context through 'different urgency levels' and 'save by waiting,' suggesting when users want cost comparisons across confirmation speeds. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling fee estimation tools or prerequisites like needing transaction draft details (input/output counts).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'Get' and lists the returned fields, but omits other behavioral traits like data freshness, potential latency, or whether the call is lightweight versus expensive. It meets minimum disclosure but lacks rich 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is efficiently front-loaded with the action, followed by a colon-delimited list of return fields. There is no extraneous text; every word serves to clarify the tool's output.
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?
Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description does not need to exhaustively detail return values. The enumeration of key fields (chain, difficulty, etc.) provides sufficient context for an agent to select this tool for general blockchain state queries.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description correctly implies no filtering or configuration is needed for this general state query.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and enumerates the exact data points returned (chain, difficulty, softfork statuses, chain work, pruning), clarifying what 'blockchain info' entails. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this comprehensive getter from sibling tools like get_difficulty_adjustment or get_mining_info that return overlapping subsets of this data.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the many specific sibling getters (e.g., get_difficulty_adjustment, get_chain_tips). It omits prerequisites, context (e.g., 'use for general overview'), or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It provides useful behavioral context by specifying the exact confirmation targets (1/3/6/25/144 blocks) that will be returned, but it omits safety profile information (read-only status, idempotency) that would clarify this is a safe data retrieval operation.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action ('Get fee rate estimates') and immediately follows with the specific configuration details (confirmation targets and units), delivering maximum information density.
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?
Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe return values), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the key behavioral detail (confirmation targets). It could be improved by noting the data source or freshness, but it is sufficient for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description references the confirmation targets (1/3/6/25/144) which effectively describes the structure of the data returned, adding contextual value beyond the empty parameter schema without needing to document input arguments.
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 states the specific resource (fee rate estimates), the exact confirmation targets (1/3/6/25/144 blocks), and the unit of measurement (sat/vB). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like `estimate_smart_fee`, `get_fee_recommendation`, or `compare_fee_estimates`.
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 select this tool versus the four sibling fee-related tools (`estimate_smart_fee`, `get_fee_recommendation`, `compare_fee_estimates`, `estimate_transaction_cost`). The agent is given no criteria to determine which fee tool is appropriate for a given user query.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full disclosure burden. It successfully lists the specific data points returned (difficulty, hashrate, block size), but omits other behavioral context such as data freshness, caching behavior, or rate limiting that would help the agent understand operational constraints.
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 a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb. The colon-separated list format efficiently communicates the return values without extraneous words. Every element earns its place.
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?
Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists (per context signals), the description adequately covers the essential contract by listing the specific mining metrics retrieved. It could be improved by noting data freshness or caching, but it meets the minimum viable threshold for a simple read-only data retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters (100% coverage of empty set), establishing a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameter semantics where none exist, though it implicitly confirms no filtering parameters are available by exhaustively listing the fixed return values.
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 states the action ('Get') and resource ('mining info'), and lists specific returned metrics (difficulty, network hashrate, block size). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_difficulty_adjustment' or 'get_blockchain_info' which may overlap in functionality.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify when to prefer this over 'get_difficulty_adjustment' (which also returns difficulty data) or 'get_blockchain_info' (which may contain overlapping network data).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the 'Max 10 blocks' limit and inclusivity bounds, but fails to state whether exceeding the limit errors or truncates, or whether this is read-only/safe.
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?
Extremely efficient: two sentences for purpose+constraints, followed by structured Args documentation. No redundant text; every element earns its place.
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?
Given the simple 2-parameter integer schema and presence of output schema, the description is adequately complete. It covers the key operational constraint (max 10) that wouldn't be visible in the schema, though sibling differentiation would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage. The Args section effectively compensates by explaining both parameters are block heights and specifying they are inclusive, adding critical semantic detail absent from the schema.
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?
Clear verb ('Get') + resource ('block statistics') + scope ('range of heights'). The mention of 'range' implicitly distinguishes from single-block siblings like analyze_block or get_block_stats, though explicit differentiation from search_blockchain is absent.
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?
States the constraint 'Max 10 blocks' but provides no guidance on when to use this versus siblings like get_block_stats (likely single-block) or search_blockchain. No mention of prerequisites or error conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 what aspects of the block get analyzed (behavioral scope), but fails to indicate operational safety (read-only vs destructive), error handling for invalid blocks, or rate limiting characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately compact with no wasted words. The 'Args:' section structures the parameter documentation clearly, though the format is somewhat docstring-like rather than natural prose. Every sentence earns its place by conveying purpose or parameter semantics.
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?
Given that an output schema exists (relieving the description from detailing return values) and only one parameter requires documentation, the description is largely complete. It covers the parameter gap in the schema and lists the analysis scope. A brief note confirming this is a read-only operation would have made it fully complete given the lack of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage (the height_or_hash property lacks a description field), the description provides crucial compensation by explaining the parameter accepts either 'Block height' or 'block hash' and provides a concrete example ('939290'). This adds significant semantic value beyond the raw schema.
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 states the verb (analyze) and resource (block), and specifically lists analysis dimensions (mining pool, SegWit/Taproot adoption, fee distribution, revenue) that distinguish it from siblings like get_block_stats or compare_blocks. However, it doesn't explicitly articulate how it differs from analyze_transaction or analyze_mempool.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, nor are alternatives named. However, the specific analysis dimensions listed (SegWit/Taproot adoption, revenue) imply this tool is intended for deep economic/technical block analysis rather than basic block retrieval, providing implied usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 the return structure (description, arguments, examples) but does not confirm if the operation is read-only, cached, or requires network connectivity to the Bitcoin node. The phrase 'Get structured help' suggests a safe read operation, but this is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Efficiently structured with the purpose in the first sentence followed by an 'Args:' section documenting the parameter. No wasted words, though the 'Args:' formatting is slightly informal. Front-loaded with the most critical information.
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?
Appropriate for a single-parameter tool with an output schema (not shown). The description previews the output structure (description, arguments, examples) which aligns with the existence of an output schema, making the overall documentation sufficient without being verbose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage (only title 'Command' provided), the description adds essential semantic meaning: 'RPC command name' and concrete examples. This effectively compensates for the schema's lack of documentation, though it lacks format constraints or validation rules.
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?
Clearly states the tool retrieves 'structured help for a Bitcoin RPC command' including description, arguments, and examples. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'list_rpc_commands' (which lists available commands versus describing specific ones).
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?
Provides concrete examples ('getblock', 'sendrawtransaction') that imply when to use the tool, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over external documentation or direct RPC execution. No 'when-not-to-use' guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses what aspects get analyzed but omits operational traits like read-only safety, idempotency, or whether the analysis is point-in-time vs cached. Given it describes analytical outputs rather than behavioral profile, coverage is partial.
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?
Single sentence, efficiently front-loaded with colons separating distinct analysis dimensions. No filler words; every phrase describes a specific analytical output.
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?
Adequate for a zero-parameter tool with output schema present. Lists the four key metrics returned, compensating for not detailing return structure (which the output schema handles). Could explicitly mention 'no parameters required' for absolute clarity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters present, establishing baseline 4 per rubric. The schema correctly reflects this with empty properties object.
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?
Clear verb ('Analyze') and resource ('mempool') with specific metrics listed (tx count, fee buckets, congestion level, next-block minimum fee). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_mempool_info' or 'analyze_next_block'.
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?
Provides implied usage through the specific analytical outputs listed (fee buckets, congestion analysis), suggesting when to use it for detailed mempool insights. Lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over 'get_mempool_info' or other mempool tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable operational context about the txindex requirement and hosted API behavior, but does not disclose safety profile (read-only status), rate limits, or caching behavior that would be necessary for a complete transparency score.
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 efficiently structured with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a clear Args section. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy or filler content.
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?
For a single-parameter analysis tool with an output schema available, the description is nearly complete. It covers the input format and operational constraints. It could be improved by explicitly distinguishing from 'decode_raw_transaction' (which takes raw hex vs. txid), but this is partially implied by the parameter name.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively compensates by specifying the txid format ('64 hex characters') and adding crucial operational context about txindex requirements. It successfully adds meaning where the schema provides none.
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 states the tool decodes and analyzes transactions, listing specific capabilities (inputs, outputs, fee rate, SegWit/Taproot flags, inscription detection). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like 'decode_raw_transaction', the specific feature set implies its scope.
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 provides operational prerequisites ('Local nodes need txindex=1 for confirmed txs') which serves as implicit 'when to use' guidance, but lacks explicit comparison to alternatives like when to use this versus 'decode_raw_transaction' or 'get_indexed_transaction'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully discloses the dual-output nature (plain-English + raw rate data) but fails to mention operational traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, or if it consumes API rate limits.
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 single sentence is efficiently front-loaded with the core action ('Get a plain-English fee recommendation') and adds qualifying details (data source, output format) without waste. Every clause earns its place in distinguishing this from raw data tools.
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?
Given the low complexity (zero parameters) and existence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool returns. It appropriately focuses on the interpretive nature of the output rather than repeating structural details covered by the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage (trivially). As per the rules, this establishes a baseline score of 4, which is appropriate since there are no parameter semantics to describe.
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 states the action ('Get'), resource ('fee recommendation'), and distinctive format ('plain-English'). It implicitly differentiates from sibling 'get_fee_estimates' by emphasizing the human-readable interpretation aspect, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.
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 hints at when to use this tool (when you want plain-English interpretation rather than raw data) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidelines or named alternatives. The phrase 'based on current estimates' suggests volatility but doesn't clarify refresh frequency or caching behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It successfully discloses what data is returned (transaction count, size, min relay fee), but does not explicitly state safety characteristics (read-only, non-destructive) or operational traits like caching behavior.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. Every clause earns its place by defining the operation ('Get'), the scope ('quick'), the resource ('mempool stats'), and the specific return values.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters) and the presence of an output schema (per context signals), the description is sufficiently complete. It identifies the key returned fields, though it could be improved by confirming the read-only nature given the lack of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, which establishes a baseline score of 4. The description correctly implies no filtering or input is needed by presenting this as a simple getter operation.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('mempool stats'), and clarifies scope by emphasizing 'quick' summary data (transaction count, size, min relay fee). This implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'analyze_mempool' tool which implies deeper inspection, though it does not explicitly name siblings.
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 word 'quick' implies the intended use case (fast summary retrieval vs. deep analysis), but there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidelines or named alternatives. The agent must infer when to choose this over 'analyze_mempool' or 'get_mempool_entry'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the hosted API behavior (reflecting server's view), but does not clarify if the operation is read-only, cached, or has rate-limiting implications.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose with specific field examples; the second provides deployment-specific context. Every word earns its place.
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?
Appropriate for the tool's low complexity. The description lists the specific network attributes covered, and since an output schema exists, it does not need to detail return values. The hosted API note addresses a key deployment consideration.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameter semantics where none exist.
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 states the specific data points retrieved (protocol version, relay fee, connections, warnings) which distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_peer_info or get_blockchain_info. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when to prefer this over get_node_status.
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 provides useful context about data provenance in hosted API mode, which informs usage expectations. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus similar network-state tools like get_peer_info or get_mempool_info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully communicates the categorical grouping of results, but omits other behavioral traits such as caching behavior, performance characteristics, or whether the command list is static or dynamic.
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 a single, efficient sentence with the action verb front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose: 'List' (action), 'all available' (scope), 'RPC commands' (resource), 'grouped by category' (output structure). Zero redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential information needed for invocation. It could be enhanced by noting this is a discovery/index tool amidst the large sibling set, but it meets the minimum viable threshold for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, which establishes a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately does not introduce non-existent parameters, maintaining consistency with the empty schema.
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 states the action (List), resource (RPC commands), scope (all available), and organization (grouped by category). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'describe_rpc_command' tool, which could cause confusion about whether to use this for overview or detailed inspection.
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 this is for discovering/cataloging available commands via the 'List all' phrasing, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'describe_rpc_command' or other analysis tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the 'side by side' detail suggesting a comparative output format, but lacks safety information (read-only status), rate limits, or error conditions. However, since an output schema exists (per context signals), the description need not explain return values.
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 optimally concise with two efficient sentences: one stating purpose and one documenting arguments. No redundant or filler text is present; every word earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (two integer parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It documents the parameters that the schema fails to describe, and the output schema handles return value documentation. It could be improved by mentioning what specific statistics are compared.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage (only titles). The description compensates by documenting both parameters: 'height1: First block height' and 'height2: Second block height'. It clarifies the ordinal relationship between the two heights but does not add format constraints, validation rules, or examples.
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 specific action (compare), resource (block statistics), and method (side by side between two block heights). The 'side by side' phrasing effectively distinguishes it from siblings like 'analyze_block' (single block) and 'get_block_stats' (retrieval without comparison).
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_block' or 'get_block_stats', nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring valid block heights or the maximum height range supported.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully explains the auto-detection algorithm and polymorphic behavior, but omits operational details such as error handling (what happens on no match?), performance characteristics, or whether the operation is read-only. It explains the 'what' of the logic but not the 'how it behaves' under failure conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the key capability ('Smart search: auto-detects'). The structure is logical, though the 'Args:' section embedded in the description text is slightly unconventional compared to schema-driven documentation. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (so return values needn't be described) and only one simple parameter, the description is reasonably complete. It adequately explains the polymorphic input handling. It could be improved by mentioning error cases or invalid input handling, but covers the essential behavioral contract for the happy path.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage (only 'title': 'Query'), but the description fully compensates by providing detailed format specifications in the Args section: txid (64 hex), block hash (64 hex starting with 0000), block height (number), and Bitcoin address. This exactly compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.
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 states the tool performs a 'Smart search' with auto-detection capabilities for different blockchain identifier types (txid, block hash, block height, address). It effectively communicates the core purpose and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'analyze_transaction' or 'get_address_balance' through its auto-detection feature, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.
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 context (when you have an identifier but don't know its type), but provides no explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool versus specific alternatives like 'analyze_transaction' or 'search_blocks'. The agent must infer that this is for ambiguous/untyped queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses the critical performance characteristic ('scans full UTXO set, may take minutes'). However, it omits other behavioral traits such as confirming it is read-only, idempotent, or whether it requires a fully indexed node to function.
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 efficiently structured with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed immediately by the critical performance caveat. The Args section is concise and directly maps to the schema. No redundant or wasted language.
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?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on the operational context (scanning behavior) and input requirements. It would benefit from explicitly stating the read-only nature (absent annotations) or describing the return value structure, but it covers the essential prerequisites and warnings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates adequately by defining the single parameter as a 'Bitcoin address to scan.' This adds semantic context (Bitcoin-specific, purpose of scanning) beyond the schema's bare 'Address' title and string type.
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 'Scan[s] the UTXO set for all unspent outputs belonging to an address,' using specific verbs and resources. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_address_balance (aggregate amount) and get_address_history (transactions) by specifying retrieval of individual unspent outputs.
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 provides an implicit usage cue through the performance warning ('may take minutes'), suggesting it is resource-intensive. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer alternatives like get_address_balance (for simple totals) versus this tool (for detailed UTXO lists).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully explains what data is returned (active chain, forks, stale branches) but omits safety traits (read-only assurance), performance characteristics, or side effects that agents need when annotations are absent.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste: the first defines the operation and data returned, the second states the value proposition. Information is front-loaded and dense.
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?
Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on high-level purpose rather than return value structure. Slight deduction because absence of annotations creates a gap for safety/behavioral context that could have been covered here.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter documentation where none exist.
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?
Excellent specificity: 'Get chain tips' uses precise verb and resource, while the colon-separated elaboration ('active chain, forks, and stale branches') clarifies exactly what 'tips' encompasses, distinguishing it from general blockchain info tools like get_blockchain_info.
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?
Provides the primary use case ('Useful for detecting chain splits'), giving agents context for when to invoke the tool. However, lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or comparisons to siblings like get_blockchain_info that might overlap in functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It qualifies the scope ('all' ancestors, 'unconfirmed') and use case (CPFP). However, missing behavioral details like error handling when txid not found in mempool, or whether results include the queried transaction itself.
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?
Extremely efficient structure: purpose statement, use case, and Args documentation. Every sentence earns its place. No redundant phrases or generic fluff. Front-loaded with the core action.
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?
Given the tool has only 1 simple parameter and an output schema exists, the description is appropriately complete. The Args section covers the schema gap. Minor gap: could mention that the transaction must exist in the mempool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage. Description compensates effectively by documenting the txid parameter with format constraints ('64 hex characters') and semantics ('Transaction hash'), providing critical validation guidance absent from the schema.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Get' with clear resource 'unconfirmed ancestor transactions' and scope 'mempool transaction'. The CPFP analysis mention further clarifies intent. Clearly distinguishes from sibling get_mempool_entry (single entry) and analyze_mempool (aggregate stats).
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?
Provides implied usage context via 'Useful for CPFP analysis', indicating when to use it. However, lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., for confirmed transactions) or alternatives like get_mempool_entry for single-transaction lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully clarifies the mempool scope (unconfirmed transactions only) but omits behavioral details like error handling when the txid is not found, rate limits, or whether this requires specific node permissions.
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 appropriately compact with two distinct sections: a clear purpose statement followed by an Args block documenting the single parameter. Every line provides necessary information without redundancy or 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?
Given the tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists (covering return values), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the tool's purpose and parameter semantics adequately, though noting the error behavior for missing transactions would provide full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates effectively by documenting the txid parameter in the Args section: defining it as a 'Transaction hash' and specifying the critical format constraint '64 hex characters' that the schema omits. It could achieve a 5 by including an example txid or noting the transaction must currently exist in the mempool.
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 provides a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('details of a specific unconfirmed transaction'), and scope ('in the mempool'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_mempool_info (general stats), get_mempool_ancestors (related transactions), and get_indexed_transaction (likely for confirmed transactions) by specifying 'specific' and 'unconfirmed'.
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 context by restricting scope to 'unconfirmed transaction in the mempool,' suggesting when to use this versus confirmed transaction lookups. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives (e.g., 'use get_indexed_transaction for confirmed transactions').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully specifies what the tool computes (the four listed metrics), but omits operational context such as whether this requires live network access, data freshness guarantees, or computational cost relative to other queries.
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 a single, information-dense sentence structured as 'action: specific outputs'. Every word serves a purpose, with the colon-delimited list efficiently conveying the return value structure without verbose explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is appropriately complete. It adds value by listing the conceptual metrics calculated, which helps the agent understand the tool's specific utility within the mining analysis domain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, which per guidelines establishes a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately makes no mention of parameters since none exist, requiring no additional semantic clarification.
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 uses a specific verb ('Calculate') with a clear resource ('difficulty adjustment progress') and enumerates exactly what metrics are returned (blocks into epoch, blocks remaining, estimated time, projected adjustment). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_mining_info (general stats) or get_halving_countdown (different epoch type).
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 context through the specific metrics listed (use when tracking difficulty epoch progress), but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like get_mining_info or get_blockchain_info, nor does it mention prerequisites such as node synchronization requirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 successfully discloses what data is returned (blocks remaining, estimated date, subsidy change), adding context beyond the output schema. However, it omits operational traits like read-only safety, data freshness, or rate limits that would be helpful without annotation coverage.
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?
Single sentence with zero waste. The structure is front-loaded with the action ('Get a focused countdown'), followed by a colon-delimited list of specific return values. Every word earns its place—'focused' signals specificity versus general blockchain queries.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, low complexity, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It appropriately lists the key data points returned without needing to fully document the output structure, which is covered by the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, which warrants the baseline score of 4. The description appropriately requires no parameter explanation since the tool is invoked without arguments.
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 uses specific verbs ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource (Bitcoin halving countdown). It distinguishes from siblings like get_blockchain_info or get_mining_info by specifying 'focused countdown' and listing unique data points (blocks remaining, subsidy change) that general tools wouldn't emphasize.
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 through specificity—it's clear this retrieves halving-specific data—but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus general info tools like get_blockchain_info or get_network_info. No 'when-not' or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses what data is returned (behavioral output), which is valuable context. However, it does not explicitly state this is read-only, mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness guarantees. The 'Get' verb implies safety, but explicit behavioral traits are missing.
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?
Single sentence structure with the action and resource front-loaded ('Get Bitcoin supply data'), followed by a colon-delimited list of specific metrics. Zero redundant words; every element earns its place by specifying scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless read operation with an output schema (per context signals), the description is complete. It lists the specific data fields returned, which is sufficient given the low complexity and absence of input parameters requiring documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters. Per scoring rules, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately requires no parameter explanation.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Bitcoin supply data'), then enumerates exact data points returned (circulating supply, max supply, inflation rate, subsidy per block, next halving estimate). This distinguishes it from sibling tool 'get_halving_countdown' by positioning this as comprehensive supply metrics versus countdown-specific data.
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 through the listed data points (use when you need these specific supply metrics), but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like 'get_halving_countdown', which also covers halving information. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adequately discloses the analysis scope (front-running, sighash types, remediation) but lacks explicit disclosure of safety characteristics (read-only status), authorization requirements, or rate limiting that would be essential for a complete behavioral profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with front-loaded purpose, followed by specific analytical outputs in a scannable list, and usage guidance. The 'Args:' section is necessary given the schema's lack of descriptions, though slightly formal. No redundant or wasted sentences.
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?
Appropriately complete given the existence of an output schema (which handles return value details). The description covers the domain-specific context (ordinals, snipe-resistance, mempool front-running) necessary to understand the tool's utility without over-exploring implementation details.
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?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description excellently compensates by specifying the encoding (hex), format (PSBT), and technical standard (BIP 174 v0), providing crucial semantic context entirely absent from the schema's bare 'title' field.
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 specific action (explain in plain language) and resource (ordinals inscription listing snipe-resistance) with precise scope. It effectively distinguishes from sibling 'analyze_psbt_security' by emphasizing 'plain language' and 'human-readable' versus technical/raw analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use ('when you need a clear explanation for a developer or marketplace operator') and contrasts with alternatives ('rather than raw analysis data'). However, it does not explicitly name the sibling tool (analyze_psbt_security) that provides the raw alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 adds critical behavioral context about data sourcing in hosted API environments. While it implies read-only behavior via the verb 'Get', it does not explicitly disclose safety characteristics or side effects.
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 consists of two highly efficient sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core functionality and specific return fields, while the second provides essential operational context.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema and zero input parameters, the description adequately covers the tool's scope by enumerating the specific status fields returned. It appropriately delegates return value details to the output schema, though it could benefit from an explicit read-only declaration given the lack of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters. Per the calibration rules, this establishes a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already communicates.
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 provides a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Bitcoin network status'), and explicitly lists the returned fields (chain, height, sync progress, disk usage, connections, version). This comprehensive field list effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_blockchain_info or get_network_info which return subsets of this data.
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 provides important contextual guidance about the hosted API mode ('reflects the API server's node'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_blockchain_info or get_network_info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and successfully discloses critical performance characteristics (1-2 minute duration, variance by node type). It does not explicitly state idempotency or safety, though 'Get' implies read-only behavior. The performance disclosure adds significant value beyond the schema.
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?
Two sentences total. First sentence front-loads purpose and return values; second sentence provides critical performance context. Zero redundancy or filler content.
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?
Given the existence of an output schema (covering return values) and empty input schema, the description successfully compensates for missing annotations by warning about the slow operation speed. It could improve by explicitly stating this scans the entire global UTXO set to contrast with address-specific siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema contains zero parameters. Per rubric, 0 params = baseline 4. The description appropriately requires no additional parameter clarification.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Get' with clear resource 'UTXO set statistics' and enumerates exact outputs (total UTXOs, total supply, disk size). This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like check_utxo (singular) or get_address_utxos (address-scoped).
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?
Provides implicit usage guidance through the performance warning ('slow operation, 1-2 minutes'), hinting not to use for latency-sensitive operations. However, it lacks explicit comparison to siblings like get_supply_info or check_utxo to clarify when to prefer this comprehensive scan over lighter alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions return values (type, network, script info), though these may be detailed in the output schema. However, it omits behavioral details like error handling (throws vs. returns validation failure), idempotency, or whether network calls are made.
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?
Extremely efficient two-sentence structure with zero fluff. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, usage guidance in the second, followed by a clean Args section. Every sentence earns its place without redundant information.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (single string parameter) and existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential contract well. Minor gap in not describing error states or invalid address handling, but adequate for tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates effectively by documenting the single 'address' parameter, including accepted formats (P2PKH, P2SH, P2WPKH, P2WSH, P2TR). This adds crucial semantic meaning missing from the bare schema. Could improve by describing validation failure behavior or input constraints.
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 specific action (validate), resource (Bitcoin address), and detailed outputs (type, network, script info). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_address_balance or analyze_transaction by focusing specifically on validation and address classification rather than financial data or transaction analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit usage contexts ('check if an address is valid before sending', 'identify what kind of address you're looking at'), giving agents clear signals for when to invoke the tool. Lacks named alternatives or explicit exclusions, though the specific purpose makes misuse unlikely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses data source behavior (Satoshi API with mempool.space fallback), ordering (newest-first), and output content (block height, timestamp, net value change). Lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid address format) or rate limiting.
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?
Efficiently structured with purpose first, implementation details second, output format third, and parameter specifications last. No redundant text; every sentence adds value beyond the structured fields.
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?
Adequate for a read-only query tool with output schema (mentioned in context signals). Covers purpose, pagination behavior, data sources, and return value structure. Minor gap regarding operational constraints (rate limits, auth requirements) or error scenarios.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the Args section provides critical compensatory value: explains address accepts 'any format', offset is for pagination with default 0, and limit has default 25 with max 100 constraint. Fully documents all 3 parameters beyond the raw 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?
Specific verb 'Get' + resource 'paginated transaction history' + scope 'for a Bitcoin address'. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_address_balance (current balance) and get_address_utxos (unspent outputs) by specifying 'transaction history' and output details (block height, timestamp, net value change).
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?
Implies usage through 'paginated' and offset/limit parameter descriptions, indicating it's for retrieving historical transaction lists rather than current state. However, lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like 'Use this instead of get_address_balance when you need full transaction history rather than just the balance.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Compensates well by listing specific output fields (addresses, latency, services, version) and the hosted API mode caveat. Could improve by explicitly stating the read-only/safe nature of the operation, but 'Get' implies non-destructive behavior.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with core functionality (peer details and attributes), followed by deployment-specific context (hosted API mode). Every clause provides distinct value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Appropriate for tool complexity: zero input parameters with existing output schema means description need not elaborate return values extensively. The enumerated fields (addresses, latency, services, version) provide sufficient context for agent to understand output utility without violating DRY principle against the output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema contains zero parameters, establishing baseline 4 per scoring rubric. Description correctly avoids inventing parameter documentation where none exist, focusing instead on output semantics and operational context.
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?
Excellent specificity: 'Get connected peer details' names the verb and resource, while enumerating exact fields (addresses, latency, services, version). Distinguishes from siblings like get_network_info or get_node_status by focusing on peer-level connectivity metrics rather than general node or network state.
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?
Provides contextual usage guidance regarding 'hosted API mode' behavior, clarifying whose peers are returned in that deployment scenario. However, lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus similar networking tools (e.g., get_network_info) and does not state prerequisites or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and succeeds in disclosing implementation details (Satoshi API primary with mempool.space fallback) and return value structure (total received/sent, current balance, timestamps). It does not mention rate limits or error behaviors, but covers data source transparency well.
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 efficiently structured with clear information hierarchy: purpose statement, implementation details, return value summary, and parameter specification. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description appropriately summarizes return values without over-specifying. It adequately covers the single parameter despite zero schema documentation and explains the dual-API implementation strategy, making it complete for this complexity level.
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 description coverage is 0% (no description field in schema), but the Args section fully compensates by explaining that the address parameter accepts 'Bitcoin address (any format: legacy, P2SH, bech32, bech32m)', providing crucial format guidance absent from the structured schema.
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 opens with specific verbs ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource (Bitcoin address) and specific data retrieved (total balance, transaction count, first/last seen times). It distinguishes from siblings like get_address_history and get_address_utxos by emphasizing summary statistics rather than detailed records or UTXO lists.
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 through specifying what data is returned (summary statistics vs. full history), but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like get_address_history or get_address_utxos. No 'when-not' or explicit alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses irreversible nature ('cannot be reversed'), real-world impact ('REAL transaction'), and implementation detail ('broadcast through the Satoshi API's node'). Does not mention confirmation timing or error states.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with action first, followed by critical warnings, implementation context, then parameter definitions. The 'In hosted API mode' detail adds value but slightly interrupts flow. No wasted words.
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?
Adequate for a high-stakes transaction tool given output schema exists. Safety warnings cover irreversibility and fees. Input parameters fully documented despite empty schema. Could mention confirmation expectations, but output schema likely covers return details.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, description fully compensates by documenting both parameters: hex_string is 'Signed raw transaction in hex format' and max_fee_rate includes purpose ('prevent accidental overpayment'), unit ('BTC/kvB'), and default value ('0.10').
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?
States specific action ('Broadcast') and resource ('signed raw transaction to the Bitcoin network'). Clearly distinguishes from sibling analytical tools like decode_raw_transaction or analyze_transaction by being the only 'send' operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit WARNING that this sends a REAL, irreversible transaction and emphasizes checking signing and fee implications. Lacks explicit naming of alternatives (e.g., decode_raw_transaction for verification), but provides clear safety context for when to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully adds behavioral context by disclosing performance characteristics (lightweight, fast). While it omits explicit readOnly classification, 'Get' implies safe read access appropriate for this data retrieval pattern.
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?
Extremely concise at five words plus parenthetical qualifier. Every element earns its place: the core function ('Get current block height') and the key differentiator ('lightweight, fast'). No redundancy or wasted space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains what the tool retrieves and its performance profile without needing to document return values (covered by output schema) or parameters (none exist).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema contains zero parameters. Per scoring rules, zero-parameter tools baseline at 4. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and purpose rather than inventing non-existent parameter documentation.
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?
States specific verb (Get) and resource (current block height). The parenthetical '(lightweight, fast)' effectively distinguishes this from siblings like get_blockchain_info or analyze_block, positioning it as a minimal, fast alternative to heavier data-retrieval tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides implicit usage guidance through 'lightweight, fast', suggesting use when performance matters and only the height is needed versus detailed analysis. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., get_blockchain_info) or state exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Successfully documents auth requirements ('free, no API key'), data source ('CoinGecko'), and return schema ('price, 24h change, and market cap'). Minor gap on rate limits or caching behavior.
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?
Three sentences with zero waste: sentence 1 establishes source and auth, sentence 2 previews return values, sentence 3 provides usage context. Front-loaded with critical operational details (CoinGecko, no API key).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Appropriate for low-complexity tool with 0 parameters and existing output schema. Covers data provenance, authentication, return value summary, and integration with sibling workflows (fee conversion). No significant gaps given the tool's narrow scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0 parameters, establishing baseline 4. Description correctly omits parameter discussion as none exist, matching the empty schema without contradiction or confusion.
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?
Specific verb 'Get' with clear resource 'BTC/USD price' and explicit data source 'CoinGecko'. Distinct from technical blockchain analysis siblings (analyze_block, get_mempool_info, etc.) by focusing on market data rather than on-chain data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides concrete use case 'convert sat/vB fees into dollar amounts' which contextualizes the tool within the server's Bitcoin fee analysis domain. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or comparison to sibling get_market_sentiment, but clear positive guidance is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return values (indexed height, chain tip, sync percentage, blocks/sec, ETA) and implies read-only behavior. Could mention performance characteristics or auth requirements, but return disclosure is strong.
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?
Three well-structured sentences: purpose declaration, return value specification, and usage guidance. No redundant words. Information is front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Appropriate for a simple zero-parameter status tool. Output schema exists (reducing need for detailed return description), yet description helpfully lists expected fields. No obvious gaps given tool complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters present, warranting baseline score of 4 per rubric. Schema coverage is 100% (empty object), so no additional parameter semantics needed.
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?
Clear specific verb 'Check' + resource 'blockchain indexer sync progress'. The term 'indexer' effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_node_status or get_blockchain_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'to check if the indexer is running and how far along the initial sync is'. However, lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or named alternatives among the many similar status-checking siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 effectively discloses the semantic structure of returned data (0-100 scale, five classification tiers, historical data). While it doesn't mention caching, rate limits, or API dependencies, it provides sufficient behavioral context for an agent to interpret the results correctly.
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 consists of two efficient sentences. The first front-loads the core action and data structure; the second provides usage context. There is no redundant information or unnecessary verbosity—every word serves a specific purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description appropriately focuses on explaining the semantic meaning of the returned data (Fear & Greed classifications) rather than input mechanics. It fully covers what an agent needs to know to invoke and interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, which establishes a baseline score of 4 per the evaluation rules. The description correctly implies no filtering or configuration is needed by focusing entirely on the fixed data structure returned.
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 explicitly states it retrieves the 'Bitcoin Fear & Greed Index' and details the specific data returned: current value (0-100), classification categories, and 7-day history. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_btc_price (raw price data) and analyze_block (technical blockchain analysis) by focusing specifically on sentiment metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: 'Use this to gauge market sentiment alongside price data.' This implies complementary use with tools like get_btc_price and clarifies the tool's domain (sentiment vs. technical analysis). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' exclusions, but effectively signals its purpose within the broader toolset.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden and successfully specifies the time window ('last week'), result limit ('top 10'), and return structure ('pool name, percentage...'). It does not mention rate limits or data freshness, but covers the essential behavioral constraints for this query type.
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?
Three sentences with zero waste: first defines the operation and scope, second specifies return values, third provides usage context. Information is front-loaded with the core action, making it immediately parseable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Appropriately complete for a zero-parameter tool with an output schema. The description supplements the structured output by previewing the return fields (pool name, percentage, block count) and clearly defining the query constraints without unnecessary verbosity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema contains zero parameters. Per scoring rules, 0 params establishes a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately requires no parameter clarification.
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 explicitly states the action ('Get'), resource ('Bitcoin mining pools'), and specific scope constraints ('top 10', 'by hashrate share', 'last week'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_mining_info or analyze_block which handle different data domains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear positive guidance ('Use this to understand mining centralization and pool dominance') establishing the analytical context. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or named alternatives, though no direct sibling alternative appears to exist for pool rankings specifically.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels: it defines exact detection logic (vulnerable when SIGHASH_SINGLE|ANYONECANPAY without 2-of-2 multisig), protection criteria (2-of-2 P2WSH with SIGHASH_ALL), and operational constraints (pure BIP 174 parsing, no node required). No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with logical flow: vulnerability detection → attack vector → protection mechanism → technical requirements → parameters. Front-loaded with purpose. The 'Args:' formatting is slightly informal but efficient. No redundant sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a specialized security analysis tool, the description provides complete domain context: it explains the threat model (mempool sniping), the cryptographic conditions (sighash types, multisig structures), and input requirements. Output schema exists per context signals, so return value description is unnecessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage (only title 'Psbt Hex'). The description compensates by specifying 'Hex-encoded PSBT string (BIP 174 v0),' providing encoding format and protocol version. This successfully conveys the parameter's semantics despite the schema deficiency.
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 opens with a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('PSBT'), clearly defining the scope as 'ordinals inscription listing mempool sniping vulnerability.' It distinguishes from generic transaction analysis siblings by focusing specifically on ordinals listing security and PSBT parsing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context for when to use (analyzing ordinals listing PSBTs for front-running risk) and notes 'No Bitcoin node required,' indicating it's for offline/local PSBT analysis. Lacks explicit comparison to sibling 'explain_inscription_listing_security' but implies usage through detailed vulnerability scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Successfully discloses operational constraints: no external dependencies, signature verification limitations, and parsing scope boundaries. Could improve by explicitly stating error behavior for malformed invoices or idempotency status.
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?
Three tight sentences followed by Args documentation. Each sentence delivers distinct value: capability, specific extraction targets, and critical limitations. No redundancy or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Appropriately complete for a single-parameter decoding tool. Output schema exists, so return value description isn't required in text. Covers input format validation hints (prefixes), operational constraints, and parsing limitations sufficiently for agent invocation.
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 description coverage is 0% (parameter lacks description field). Description compensates fully by providing critical format semantics: 'BOLT11 payment request string (starts with lnbc, lntb, or lnbcrt)', which defines expected input patterns that the schema omits.
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?
Specific verb 'Decode' + resource 'BOLT11 Lightning invoice' + scope 'without external dependencies'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling 'decode_raw_transaction' by focusing on Lightning invoices rather than base-layer transactions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states limitations ('Does NOT verify the signature or parse tagged fields beyond basic extraction'), guiding agents away from using this for validation needs. 'Without external dependencies' signals appropriate context for standalone parsing. No named sibling alternatives exist for signature verification, but the limitation is clearly disclosed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It effectively explains the aggregation behavior (combining what would be 5+ separate calls into one) and implies read-only safety via 'Get' and 'briefing.' However, it lacks explicit confirmation of idempotency or safety guarantees that annotations would typically provide.
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?
Two well-structured sentences with zero waste: first defines functionality (what it gets), second defines usage context (when to use it). Information is front-loaded with the core purpose in the opening clause.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter aggregation tool with output schema present, the description is complete. It identifies all aggregated data sources (price, fees, mempool, chain tip), explains the consolidation benefit, and provides usage context without needing to document return values (handled by output schema).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). Per scoring rules, 0 parameters establishes a baseline of 4. The description correctly requires no additional parameter explanation.
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 uses specific verbs ('Get') and clearly identifies the aggregated resource ('Bitcoin briefing: price, fees, mempool, and chain tip'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating it 'replaces calling 5+ tools separately,' clearly positioning it against individual getters like get_btc_price or get_mempool_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this as your first call to understand current conditions') and clearly identifies what it replaces ('replaces calling 5+ tools separately'). This gives the agent clear decision criteria for selecting this aggregation tool over individual data fetchers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden and excels: it explains the default redaction behavior, the security risk of AI logging, the consequence of setting include_private_key=True, and the local node requirement. No contradictions with annotations (none exist).
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?
Efficiently structured with purpose first, followed by SECURITY header for critical warnings, and Args section for parameter details. Every sentence provides necessary information (prerequisites, risks, parameter semantics) with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (reducing the need to describe return values) and the high-stakes nature of key generation, the description adequately covers operational constraints, security warnings, and parameter semantics. Complete for this complexity level.
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 description coverage is 0% (properties lack description fields), but the Args section fully compensates by detailing valid enum values for address_type (explaining P2PKH, P2SH-P2WPKH, etc.) and the security implications of include_private_key. Comprehensive coverage of both parameters.
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 opens with a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('Bitcoin address'), clarifies the mechanism ('via the connected node's wallet'), and distinguishes from siblings—all of which are read-only analysis tools (analyze_*, get_*) or transaction inspection rather than wallet generation operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states operational prerequisites ('Requires a local node with a wallet loaded') and constraints ('not available when using the hosted Satoshi API'), providing clear when-to-use context. However, it does not name a specific alternative tool for the hosted API scenario, stopping short of a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses key behavioral traits: it uses a blockchain indexer (not direct RPC), provides data enrichment (resolved addresses, spent/unspent status), and implements fallback logic to mempool.space. Minor gap: doesn't mention caching, rate limits, or error behaviors.
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?
Perfectly structured and front-loaded: opening sentence states purpose, second paragraph differentiates from siblings, third sentence notes fallback behavior, and Args section documents the parameter. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the description is complete. It covers purpose, sibling differentiation, fallback behavior, and parameter semantics for the single-parameter tool. No gaps remain for the agent to invoke this correctly.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage (only 'title': 'Txid' and type: string). The description compensates fully by documenting the txid parameter format: 'Transaction ID (64-character hex string)', adding critical semantic constraints missing from the schema.
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 specific action ('Get enriched transaction details'), the resource (transactions), and the source ('blockchain indexer'). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool analyze_transaction by contrasting 'enriched' indexed data against 'raw RPC' data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides when-to-use guidance by contrasting with analyze_transaction: 'Unlike analyze_transaction (which uses raw RPC), this returns resolved input addresses...' This tells the agent to use this tool when needing resolved addresses, spent/unspent status, and block context rather than raw data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![bitcoin-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Bortlesboat/bitcoin-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Bortlesboat/bitcoin-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![bitcoin-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Bortlesboat/bitcoin-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Bortlesboat/bitcoin-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Bortlesboat/bitcoin-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server