Bitcoin-MCP

validate_address

Check Bitcoin address validity and identify its type (legacy/segwit/taproot), network, and script details before sending transactions.

Instructions

Validate a Bitcoin address and return its type (legacy/segwit/taproot), network, and script info. Use this to check if an address is valid before sending, or to identify what kind of address you're looking at.

Args: address: Bitcoin address to validate (any format: P2PKH, P2SH, P2WPKH, P2WSH, P2TR)

Tool call template

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

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Apr 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

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 tool's behavior by stating it validates addresses and returns specific info, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or performance characteristics. The description does not contradict any annotations.

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 sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence clearly stating the purpose and output, followed by usage guidelines and parameter details. Every sentence adds value 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's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics well, but could benefit from more behavioral details like error cases or limitations.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that the 'address' parameter accepts any Bitcoin address format (P2PKH, P2SH, P2WPKH, P2WSH, P2TR), providing crucial context not present in the schema's minimal title and 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's purpose with a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('Bitcoin address'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on address validation rather than analysis, transaction handling, or data retrieval. It explicitly mentions returning address type, network, and script 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?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool ('check if an address is valid before sending' or 'identify what kind of address you're looking at'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., get_address_balance or get_address_history).

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

Deploy Server