Skip to main content
Glama

Satoshidata Wallet Intel

by io.github.wrbtc

submit_feedback

Submit machine-readable label corrections, missing-label suggestions, data-quality reports, or general feedback.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asksNo
reasonNo
addressNo
messageNo
summaryNo
categoryNo
endpointNo
severityNo
confidenceNo
source_urlNo
current_labelNo
feedback_typeYes
suggested_labelNo
suggested_categoryNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
dataNo
errorNo
endpointYes
status_codeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed8 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / category / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "enum": [
-      "api_design",
-      "docs",
-      "data_quality",
-      "label_correction",
-      "bug",
-      "other"
-    ],
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / category / description
      Removed value: -"Optional category for general feedback."
    • removedInput schema / properties / category / enum
      Removed value: -[
-  "api_design",
-  "docs",
-  "data_quality",
-  "label_correction",
-  "bug",
-  "other"
-]
    • removedInput schema / properties / feedback_type / description
      Removed value: -"Feedback type."
    • removedInput schema / properties / feedback_type / enum
      Removed value: -[
-  "label_correction",
-  "label_missing",
-  "data_quality",
-  "general",
-  "general_feedback"
-]
    • changedInput schema / properties / severity / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "enum": [
-      "info",
-      "low",
-      "medium",
-      "high",
-      "critical"
-    ],
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / severity / description
      Removed value: -"Optional triage severity for general feedback."
    • removedInput schema / properties / severity / enum
      Removed value: -[
-  "info",
-  "low",
-  "medium",
-  "high",
-  "critical"
-]
  2. Changed8 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / category / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "enum": [
+      "api_design",
+      "docs",
+      "data_quality",
+      "label_correction",
+      "bug",
+      "other"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / category / description
      Added value: +"Optional category for general feedback."
    • addedInput schema / properties / category / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "api_design",
+  "docs",
+  "data_quality",
+  "label_correction",
+  "bug",
+  "other"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / feedback_type / description
      Added value: +"Feedback type."
    • addedInput schema / properties / feedback_type / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "label_correction",
+  "label_missing",
+  "data_quality",
+  "general",
+  "general_feedback"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / severity / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "enum": [
+      "info",
+      "low",
+      "medium",
+      "high",
+      "critical"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / severity / description
      Added value: +"Optional triage severity for general feedback."
    • addedInput schema / properties / severity / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "info",
+  "low",
+  "medium",
+  "high",
+  "critical"
+]
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / message
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Message"
+}
  4. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / asks
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Asks"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / category
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Category"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / endpoint
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Endpoint"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / severity
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Severity"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / summary
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Summary"
+}
  5. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'machine-readable' but does not explain what happens after submission, whether it's a write operation with side effects, permissions required, or rate limits. For a submission tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single sentence that starts with the verb 'Submit' and immediately conveys the tool's scope. Every word contributes meaning; there is no fluff or redundancy. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 has 14 parameters and no annotation coverage, the description is far too sparse. It fails to explain required parameters, valid feedback_type values, or how to structure the submission. While an output schema exists, it does not compensate for the lack of input guidance. The description is only a purpose statement, not complete enough for correct invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter semantics. The required feedback_type parameter is never described, and the relationship between the listed feedback subtypes and the numerous optional parameters (suggested_label, current_label, reason, etc.) is unstated. Parameter names provide some hints, but the description adds no meaningful guidance.

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 tool submits feedback, listing four specific subtypes (label corrections, missing-label suggestions, data-quality reports, general feedback). This distinguishes it from the many data-query sibling tools. The verb 'Submit' and resource 'feedback' are specific and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when submitting machine-readable feedback of the listed types. It implies these scenarios are distinct from querying data, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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

All Satoshidata Wallet Intel toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters have unclear boundaries: address_evidence_pack, address_intelligence, address_risk, risk_check, wallet_detail, wallet_summary, and wallet_trust_safety all return address-related intelligence with subtle differences. Similarly, pulse_dormant, chain_awakenings, and dormancy_flushes all describe dormant-coin reactivation events, and whale_alerts overlaps heavily with pulse_whales. Agents will likely struggle to select the correct tool without deep domain knowledge.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names predominantly follow a snake_case convention with domain-prefix patterns (address_*, batch_*, entity_*, mempool_*, pulse_*, timestamp_*, tx_*, wallet_*). There are minor deviations like op_return_decode (object-verb ordering) and some noun-only names, but overall the pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

With 44 tools, this is a large surface that exceeds the 'too many' threshold in the calibration scale. While the server covers a broad Bitcoin intelligence domain, the sheer number of tools—especially with overlapping functionality—makes it feel bloated and difficult to navigate.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers virtually every major aspect of Bitcoin intelligence: address analysis, entity rollups, mempool state, network stats, mining pools, on-chain pulse events, transaction verification, timestamping, and batch operations. There are no obvious dead ends or missing capabilities for the stated purpose.

Resources