Bitcoin Data MCP Server

get_transaction

Retrieve Bitcoin transaction information by providing a transaction ID, with an option to include basic analysis.

Instructions

Get transaction information by txid

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": {
      "txid": "<txid>"
    },
    "name": "get_transaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`txid`	Yes	Transaction ID
`include_analysis`	No	Include basic analysis

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Get transaction information' but does not disclose specific behaviors like whether it's read-only, what data is returned by default, or any rate limits. The brief description lacks transparency.

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?

The single-sentence description is concise with no wasted words. However, it is extremely brief (4 words) and could benefit from more detail while remaining concise. It earns its place but is on the edge of under-specification.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no output schema, no annotations, and two parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally complete. It does not explain what 'transaction information' includes or how 'include_analysis' changes the output. More detail would improve completeness.

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 both parameters (txid and include_analysis) having descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description 'Get transaction information by txid' clearly specifies the verb (get) and resource (transaction information) with a method (by txid). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'trace_coin_lineage' or 'get_block', which could also involve transactions. It is clear but generic.

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. There is no mention of when not to use it or any prerequisites. The description simply states the function without contextual usage hints.

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

Deploy Server