Skip to main content
Glama
teamssUTXO

Bitcoin-MCP-Server

by teamssUTXO
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python

get_transaction_input_output

Analyze Bitcoin transaction flow by retrieving detailed input and output breakdowns, including addresses, amounts, and fund movement patterns for transparency and tracking.

Instructions

Use this to get detailed input and output breakdown of a Bitcoin transaction, including all addresses and amounts involved.

Returns comprehensive flow analysis in string format across four sections:

**Accounting Summary:**
- Total incoming volume (sum of all inputs) in BTC
- Total outgoing volume (sum of all outputs) in BTC
- Network fees paid (difference between inputs and outputs) in BTC

**Detailed UTXO Flow:**
- List of all incoming movements (inputs) with:
  - Source address
  - Amount in BTC
  - Previous transaction reference (prev_out)
- List of all outgoing movements (outputs) with:
  - Destination address
  - Amount in BTC
  - Output index

**Participant Registry:**
- Complete list of sender addresses (count included)
- Complete list of recipient addresses (count included)

This provides full transparency into the transaction's inputs (where funds came from) and outputs (where funds went), essential for tracking fund flow and identifying all parties involved.

Use cases: When you need to trace Bitcoin flow, identify sender/recipient addresses, analyze UTXO structure, or investigate complex multi-party transactions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
txidYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Tool Definition Quality

A4.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it returns 'comprehensive flow analysis in string format across four sections' (Accounting Summary, Detailed UTXO Flow, Participant Registry), specifies the output format, and mentions it's 'essential for tracking fund flow and identifying all parties involved.' However, it doesn't cover potential limitations like rate limits or error conditions, keeping it from a perfect score.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-structured and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then details the return format in organized sections, and ends with specific use cases. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or fluff—making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (analyzing transaction inputs/outputs), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is highly complete. It thoroughly explains what the tool does, its return format, and when to use it, providing all necessary context for an agent to invoke it correctly without needing to rely on the output schema alone.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'txid', so the description must fully compensate. It implicitly clarifies the parameter by stating the tool is for 'a Bitcoin transaction,' making it clear that 'txid' refers to a transaction ID. This adds essential semantic context beyond the bare schema, fully addressing the coverage gap.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'get detailed input and output breakdown of a Bitcoin transaction, including all addresses and amounts involved.' It specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('Bitcoin transaction'), and scope ('input and output breakdown'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_bitcoin_transaction_infos' or 'get_transactions_of_address' by focusing on UTXO flow analysis.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use cases: When you need to trace Bitcoin flow, identify sender/recipient addresses, analyze UTXO structure, or investigate complex multi-party transactions.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as for detailed transaction analysis rather than general transaction info or address overviews.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/teamssUTXO/Bitcoin-MCP-Server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server