rareSatsForUTXOInspect a UTXO to identify any rare satoshi units it contains, such as uncommon, rare, epic, legendary, or named single-satoshis.
Inspect a single UTXO and report any rare sats it contains (uncommon, rare, epic, legendary, or named single-satoshi units). Returns an empty array if none.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| utxoId | Yes | UTXO reference in 'txid:vout' form (e.g. 'a1b2...:0'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the return behavior ('Returns an empty array if none') and enumerating the rare sat categories (uncommon, rare, epic, legendary, named single-satoshi units). This gives the agent a clearer picture of what to expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose, lists the categories, and states the empty-array return behavior. Every element earns its place with no wasted words.
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?
For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema and clear annotations, the description is sufficiently complete: it defines the input scope, the type of results, and the empty case. However, it does not describe the structure of the returned rare-sat entries, which could be useful given no output schema is present, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'utxoId', which already includes a clear description of the 'txid:vout' format. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'inspect', the resource 'a single UTXO', and the outcome 'report any rare sats it contains' with a list of specific rarity types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getSatRangesForUTXO (which returns ranges) and getRareSats (which may cover more than a single UTXO).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when inspecting a specific UTXO for rare sats, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like getRareSats or getSatRangesForUTXO. It lacks clear guidance on exclusions or alternative tools, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.