Retrieve paginated transaction history for a Bitcoin address, including per-transaction value details. Use limit and offset to page through incoming and outgoing activity.
Get paginated transaction history for a Bitcoin address with per-tx value details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the pagination behavior and the granularity of the response ('per-tx value details'), which is useful, but says nothing about transaction ordering, rate limits, or behavior on an unknown/invalid address.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly what leaves the usage and parameter gaps.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description adequately conveys the tool's identity. However, with three parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, a one-line description leaves too much unstated for an agent to call it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the three undocumented parameters. It only hints at pagination ('paginated'), which loosely maps to limit/offset, but defines no semantics, defaults, or bounds for them beyond what the bare schema already shows.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get transaction history for a Bitcoin address') plus scope qualifiers ('paginated', 'per-tx value details'). It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not differentiate itself from the very similar sibling get_address_history, leaving the agent to guess which one to call.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. With siblings like get_address_history, get_address_utxos, and get_address_balance in the same namespace, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.