Retrieve all Rune transfers in a Bitcoin transaction by txid, including rune names, amounts, addresses, and operation types. Track rune movement and operations for any Bitcoin tx.
Get all Rune transfers in a Bitcoin transaction. Returns rune names, amounts, addresses, and operation types.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| txid | Yes | Bitcoin transaction ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (rune names, amounts, addresses, operation types), which is real value given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about behavior for invalid txids, Rune-less transactions, rate limits, or whether the RPC may need an indexer.
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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the return contents second. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.
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 read tool, covering purpose plus return fields is nearly sufficient, and it compensates for the absent output schema. Missing only edge-case behavior (no-runed tx, invalid txid).
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?
Only one parameter (txid) at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format or validation context beyond what the schema supplies, making the baseline of 3 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Get all Rune transfers in a Bitcoin transaction,' which an agent can distinguish from inscription- or balance-oriented siblings by resource alone. It stops short of naming the closest sibling (get_tx_inscriptions) or otherwise drawing the boundary explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the resource scope — call this when you need Rune transfers for a given txid — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the parallel get_tx_inscriptions tool, and no guidance for transactions that contain no Runes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.