tx_statusConfirmation status for a txid (block_height, block_hash, confirmed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| txid | Yes | ||
| network | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirmed | Yes | Is transaction confirmed | |
| block_hash | No | Block hash if confirmed | |
| block_time | No | Block time if confirmed | |
| block_height | No | Block height if confirmed |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "txid": "1e3e4c4688992486ff5e3d4dd47e8f5f8d8f6f8f8f8f8f8f8f8f8f8f8f8f8f8f"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "block_hash": {
+ "description": "Block hash if confirmed",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "block_height": {
+ "description": "Block height if confirmed",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "block_time": {
+ "description": "Block time if confirmed",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "confirmed": {
+ "description": "Is transaction confirmed",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "confirmed"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns specific fields but does not explain what happens on invalid txid or the role of the 'network' parameter.
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?
Single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Efficiently conveys the core purpose.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete for a simple lookup tool. However, it could mention the optional 'network' parameter and error conditions for a truly complete picture.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions txid and the return fields, but the 'network' parameter is not explained. The description adds some meaning beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states that the tool returns confirmation status (block_height, block_hash, confirmed) for a given txid, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'transaction' which would provide full transaction details.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'transaction' for full details, 'mempool' for unconfirmed). The usage is implied but not clarified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tool set includes multiple near-identical tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and several overlapping entity/profile tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim) that make it hard for an agent to choose the right one. The Bitcoin-specific tools are isolated and don't integrate well with the rest, creating two separate domains.
Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use snake_case (ask_pipeworx, fee_estimates), some use underscores (polymarket_edges), and others are standalone verbs (remember, recall, forget). No consistent pattern is followed across the tool set.
With 39 tools, the server is overstuffed for its stated purpose ('Blockstream Info'). The Bitcoin blockchain tools are only 7, while the rest are a sprawling external data platform (Pipeworx) with many redundant tools, making the number feel excessive and unfocused.
For a Bitcoin-oriented server, the blockchain tools cover basic operations (address, block, transaction, fee_estimates) but miss essentials like UTXO queries or block details. Meanwhile, the Pipeworx tools dominate and are overcomplete for a server that should be lightweight. The mismatch leaves the Bitcoin part incomplete.