Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bitcoin Data MCP Server

Bitcoin Data MCP Server

by myownipgit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

analyze_utxo_distribution

Examine unspent transaction output (UTXO) distribution across multiple Bitcoin addresses to understand holding patterns and spending potential.

Instructions

Analyze UTXO distribution for multiple addresses

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_list": "<address_list>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_utxo_distribution"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
address_listYesList of Bitcoin addresses

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only says 'Analyze UTXO distribution'. It fails to explain what analysis is performed (e.g., aggregation, histogram), performance implications, or error handling.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single short sentence, but it is vague and lacks informative detail. It is concise but not sufficiently rich.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (analysis of UTXO distribution), the description is too minimal. It omits what the 'distribution' entails, return format, and when to use it, making it incomplete for effective selection.

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 description coverage is 100% for the only parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'List of Bitcoin addresses', such as format constraints or size limits.

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 verb 'Analyze' and the resource 'UTXO distribution', and specifies it handles multiple addresses. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_utxos' which likely returns UTXOs for a single address.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_utxos' for single addresses. It lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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