Fetch details for any Bitcoin satoshi by ordinal number, including rarity, epoch, cycle, period, name, and inscriptions. Use it to verify rare sats and their traits.
Get information about a specific satoshi by its ordinal number. Returns rarity level, epoch, cycle, period, name, and any inscription on it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ordinal | Yes | Satoshi ordinal number (e.g., 1857578125803250) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return payload shape (rarity level, epoch, cycle, period, name, inscription), which implies a read-only lookup. However, it says nothing about behavior for invalid/nonexistent ordinals, rate limits, or whether the ordinal must reference a mined satoshi.
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?
Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first states the action and key, the second enumerates the output. Front-loaded and free of filler.
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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema and no nested objects, the description is nearly sufficient because it lists the returned fields, compensating for the missing output schema. The remaining gap is guidance on alternatives and failure behavior, which is minor at this complexity.
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 100%, so the ordinal parameter (format, min/max length, example) is already fully documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'by its ordinal number' adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb ('Get information about') and a precise resource ('a specific satoshi by its ordinal number'), then enumerates the returned attributes (rarity, epoch, cycle, period, name, inscription). No sibling tool covers per-satoshi lookups, so ambiguity is low, though it never explicitly differentiates itself from the adjacent get_address_rare_sats.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The mention of 'any inscription on it' loosely hints at overlap with get_inscription, but the agent is left to infer whether to call this or that sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.