Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bitcoin Data MCP Server

Bitcoin Data MCP Server

by myownipgit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

analyze_fee_landscape

Analyze current Bitcoin transaction fees and receive actionable recommendations based on network conditions and prediction horizons.

Instructions

Analyze current fee landscape and get recommendations

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "analyze_fee_landscape"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
prediction_horizonNoFee prediction horizoncurrent

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'analyze' and 'get recommendations', lacking details on side effects, read-only nature, required permissions, or output format. Agent cannot assess safety or side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, no wasted words. However, extreme brevity sacrifices necessary detail. Efficient but not fully informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Only 1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations. Description does not explain what the output looks like, what 'recommendations' entail, or how prediction_horizon affects results. Incomplete for a recommendation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with description 'Fee prediction horizon' for the only parameter. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states it analyzes fee landscape and provides recommendations. It is clear and distinct from sibling tools like analyze_mempool_state and analyze_utxo_distribution. Could be more specific about scope (e.g., on-chain fees).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases. The description does not help an agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools