Cookbook

This page walks through example prompts you can run through a chatbot connected to EBA's MCP, each paired with a sample response a chatbot generated (Claude Sonnet 5).

The prompts are intentionally simple. They're a starting point showing the kind of questions you can ask, from basic lookups to more complex, multi-step queries. This barely scratches the surface of what you can learn, explore, and investigate using EBA's MCP, so feel free to adapt and extend them for your own use case. Responses will vary depending on your chatbot and how you phrase things, and the ones included here are just real examples of what's possible.

Each prompt uses real Bitcoin block heights, script addresses (or their SHA256), and transaction IDs, so you can copy-paste, and run them right away.

For a full breakdown of EBA's MCP tools, see this page.

Exploring Blocks

Quick queries about a single block, its transaction count, market metrics, or supply data.

prompt

What's the database cutoff point right now?

response

Latest block height in the service's database is 800,000.

Reading On-Chain Data

prompt

Show me the transaction count and median time for block 800,000.

response

Block 800,000:

Transaction count: 3,721 Median time: 1690165851 (July 24, 2023)

Reading Market and Valuation Data

prompt

What was the market cap and NUPL at block 800,000?

response

Block 800,000 (July 24, 2023):

Market cap: ~$583.57 billion NUPL (Net Unrealized Profit/Loss): -0.0158

That NUPL value is just barely negative — right around the "hope/fear" transition zone, meaning the market was roughly at breakeven between unrealized profit and loss at that point.

prompt

How many coins were minted in block 800,000?

response

625,000,000 sats minted in block 800,000 — that's 6.25 BTC, the standard block reward after the 2020 halving (and still before the 2024 halving dropped it to 3.125).

prompt

Give me the OHLCV, MVRV, total supply and burned coins for block 800,000.

response

Block 800,000 (July 24, 2023):

OHLCV: Open/High/Low/Close all $30,023, Volume 5,396,267, VWAP$30,023 — a flat candle, likely representing a single reference price point rather than intra-block trading range MVRV: 0.984 — just under 1, meaning market value was slightly below realized value (coins were on average worth marginally less than what holders paid, consistent with the near-zero NUPL from before) Total supply: 19,437,436.85 BTC (in sats: 1,943,743,685,119,702) Burned coins: 1 sat

---

Exploring Scripts

Queries about a specific script or address, including its balance, transaction history, and UTXO activity.

Balances

prompt

Look up this Bitcoin script hash and tell me what type of script it is and what's the current balance: CNuDXVL4AFEohDSe4SvzTZxhSGFdWThhbwHrgatX6GoT

response

This script is a Taproot output (witness_v1_taproot — a native SegWit v1 / P2TR script, the type introduced by BIP 341).

Current balance: 4,833,275 satoshis ≈ 0.04833275 BTC

prompt

What was the balance of script with SHA256 CNuDXVL4AFEohDSe4SvzTZxhSGFdWThhbwHrgatX6GoT at block 795000?

response

At block 795000, the balance was 3,467,314 sats ≈ 0.03467314 BTC.

Activity History

prompt

Give me transaction summary stats for this script with SHA256 CNuDXVL4AFEohDSe4SvzTZxhSGFdWThhbwHrgatX6GoT

response

Here's the transaction summary for this Taproot script:

Stat	Value
Total transactions	10,047
Total received	5,094,263 sats (≈0.05094263 BTC)
Total sent	260,988 sats (≈0.00260988 BTC)
First received	Block 791,435 — 380 sats
First sent	Block 791,572 — 546 sats
Last received	Block 800,000 — 330 sats
Last sent	Block 795,050 — 546 sats

A few things stand out:

• The very high transaction count (10,047) combined with tiny per-transaction values (many in the hundreds of sats) is a strong signature of an inscription/ordinals-style script — this pattern is typical of Taproot outputs used for Bitcoin Ordinals or BRC-20 activity, which took off right around block 791,000+ (early 2023).
• This confirms your earlier finding: the script received its first funds at block 791,435 — right in the window between your 790,000 (balance 0) and 795,000 (balance 3,467,314) checks.
• Net balance from these totals (5,094,263 − 260,988 = 4,833,275) matches the current balance exactly, confirming consistency across the data.

prompt

Show me the last 10 UTXOs the address with SHA CNuDXVL4AFEohDSe4SvzTZxhSGFdWThhbwHrgatX6GoT spent and the last 10 it received.

response

Last 9 UTXOs spent (redeemed), all 546 sats each:

Txid	Height
96dca6354968d8f10623167ffce5148150f6c86cdb6e651390e2768d5deb488e	798461
05cc79d6f7c2f00547f6e8fbb6c7a46eb2ceff48580a917d84769d0bb9588465	798301
b332dc7b4f28bb01e404d4396b16d8cf0b474f064eadceed400f96da606b59d6	797761
b0418952f7a4a7ab61cca13bc839f3d4c9ade672bcbf71a6c844e44220ac80b0	797746
12871c4918f03c644a2d617e015f6742f40f5e9b77bd46034e44b17b977c5406	797452
cefc7b75ee5a43872d781fc115dfafd6b09cee61cb1cc8425c83af2b96792e41	797043
972666f7b2e470743e2b5332fb6f486a451f7b1a9b71078249aa8e92ae2fb304	796097
7d26758c00269a99471520f767e2ebc8d23f05ce1a75661b8a407d0af9f3d38a	795918
a624094d5ebdee78a86a6e9476191fc1692b47a41fcdd50a72418c872646d503	795415

Last 9 UTXOs received (rewarded), all 546 sats each:

Txid	Height
4db9616f60b5ebb1cf03f124a567541d9ecf3824a1f161530e971fc8ad0d54c4	795276
3d7f34e3bb81d4a542479eb9c897bd1a46d9c1fe6aa1dd01b46342f63e9bb3a5	795050
b579ae4752f02e52d03b63b972cca6e8d8d648f951217ce21bd66f0d34cdfc21	794415
ee66c8eec894ebffbb56a9d4ced38bdfeb3b0d32de0cfce7b107d86020a1c905	794148
a572e24b272b2071519d0515952a85b0131399acfd4e1dc331fe5140364e0a71	792074
6aae556f1b41ac531bdcabaea9c26b332b46a1e367d087b3f4d08c6b530d7519	792074
f4f277e8005f48b32eae9e619b5f6415ee153ee1beda1f56cc9afc23446d4720	792765
5207e8fe3cdd4be4f5a7acb0005efcabc9fff066c556d9dd0f1cb0db0fec820c	792067
4ff58dc77a90745e9aad126db7a1dd9a013bd60524305b7d8efb127b8de7f3d1	792171

The uniform 546-sat values across nearly all entries reinforce the earlier read that this is likely an ordinals/inscription-carrying script — 546 sats is the standard dust-limit output size commonly used for inscription transfers.

Exploring Transactions

Queries about a single transaction, its fee, inputs and outputs, and where the coins involved came from or went.

Transaction Structure

prompt

Summarize transaction 96dca6354968d8f10623167ffce5148150f6c86cdb6e651390e2768d5deb488e — fee, input/output value, script counts, coin age.

response

Transaction 96dca6354968d8f10623167ffce5148150f6c86cdb6e651390e2768d5deb488e:

Stat	Value
Block height	798,461
Fee	4,618 sats
Input value (sum spent)	38,749 sats
Output value (sum created)	34,131 sats
Total input scripts	3
Unique input scripts	2
Total output scripts	4
Unique output scripts	3
Min input age (coin dormancy)	0 blocks
Max output age	3,411 blocks
Output value spent so far	0 sats

Input and output values reconcile with the fee (38,749 − 34,131 = 4,618). The transaction has 3 inputs drawing from only 2 unique scripts (one script address is reused across two inputs), and creates 4 outputs across 3 unique scripts. None of the outputs have been spent yet as of this dataset's cutoff.

Where the Coins Came From

prompt

Did any of the following transactions spend any coinbase (freshly minted) coins? 96dca6354968d8f10623167ffce5148150f6c86cdb6e651390e2768d5deb488e or 398d2fc88f26471d97558c1bda3ef03921cd0f5b91a6dfb3c1deea69999f6712

response

96dca6354968d8f10623167ffce5148150f6c86cdb6e651390e2768d5deb488e — Height 798,461. SumOfUTxOOfCoinbaseOutputSpentInTx: 0 → No coinbase coins spent.

398d2fc88f26471d97558c1bda3ef03921cd0f5b91a6dfb3c1deea69999f6712 — Height 749,611. SumOfUTxOOfCoinbaseOutputSpentInTx: 627,625,298 sats → Yes, this transaction spent coinbase (freshly minted) coins — about 6.276 BTC of its total input value came from a coinbase output.

Summary: Only the second transaction (398d2fc8...) spent coinbase coins; the first (96dca635...) did not.

prompt

Show me the inputs and outputs of transaction 398d2fc88f26471d97558c1bda3ef03921cd0f5b91a6dfb3c1deea69999f6712, with addresses and values, and tell me which outputs of this trasnaction have already been spent?

response

Here's the breakdown for transaction 398d2fc88f26471d97558c1bda3ef03921cd0f5b91a6dfb3c1deea69999f6712 (block 749,611):

Inputs (UTXOs spent):

Address	Value (sats)	Created In (Txid, vout)	Created At Height	Age at Spending
322eWk59mgQReBbgd5GsUb6iJNJhasakn9	4,149,596,200	6a0da3415583f315a55a5350a9c4a05cebd9d2245dafbcf99f5716150a3831de, vout 61	749,604	7 blocks
3E73ngbypDNGN2tsg55VBePr1FA8qNDgn8	798,710,500	d3ccfa27de2ba4816035b356e1caec62cd09abfa4a0eb6d123eba8188c29b70c, vout 0	749,602	9 blocks
3KZDwmJHB6QJ13QPXHaW7SS3yTESFPZoxb	627,625,298	723abb246d7bc5e94f8885b9749d3cfe479e0f3ddff63cf68150f273a9d3978b, vout 0	749,507	104 blocks

Outputs (UTXOs created):

Address	Value (sats)	Created At Height	Spent?	Spent At Height
3MqUP6G1daVS5YTD8fz3QgwjZortWwxXFd	4,528,083,181	749,611	✅ Yes	749,752
1CYp3YKivN86H1mVoAajfWiWTd6PrkRUiC	8,268,775,718	749,611	✅ Yes	753,145

Which outputs have been spent: Both outputs have already been spent —

• Output to 3MqUP6G1... was spent at block 749,752
• Output to 1CYp3YKi... was spent at block 753,145

This matches the earlier summary's OutputValueSpent: 12,796,858,899 sats, which equals the full sum of both outputs — confirming 100% of this transaction's outputs have been consumed downstream.

prompt

What's the age of each input UTXO spent in transaction 398d2fc88f26471d97558c1bda3ef03921cd0f5b91a6dfb3c1deea69999f6712?

response

Based on the data already pulled for this transaction, here's the age of each input UTXO:

Address	Value (sats)	Created At Height	Spent At Height (749,611)	Age at Spending
322eWk59mgQReBbgd5GsUb6iJNJhasakn9	4,149,596,200	749,604	749,611	7 blocks
3E73ngbypDNGN2tsg55VBePr1FA8qNDgn8	798,710,500	749,602	749,611	9 blocks
3KZDwmJHB6QJ13QPXHaW7SS3yTESFPZoxb	627,625,298 (coinbase)	749,507	749,611	104 blocks

All three inputs are relatively young — the oldest (the coinbase input) had only matured 104 blocks (~17 hours) before being spent, and the other two were spent within 7-9 blocks of being created.

Real-World Scenarios

These are the kinds of questions you're likely to actually have in mind. Answering them requires the chatbot to chain together multiple EBA MCP tools, often calling the same tool several times with different arguments to piece together the full picture.

prompt

Is the input UTXO in transaction 398d2fc88f26471d97558c1bda3ef03921cd0f5b91a6dfb3c1deea69999f6712 a coinbase reward, and how old is it?

response

One of the three inputs is a coinbase reward:

Coinbase input:

Address: 3KZDwmJHB6QJ13QPXHaW7SS3yTESFPZoxb Value: 627,625,298 sats (≈6.276 BTC) Created at height: 749,507 Spent at height: 749,611 Age: 104 blocks (~17 hours) at time of spending

This matches the SumOfUTxOOfCoinbaseOutputSpentInTx value (627,625,298) from the transaction summary, confirming this specific UTXO is the freshly-minted coinbase coin being spent in this transaction.

The other two inputs (4,149,596,200 sats at 7 blocks old, and 798,710,500 sats at 9 blocks old) are not coinbase — they're ordinary previously-circulated coins.

Following the Money

prompt

Where did the coins currently held by script with sha256 B5smJ9drvUuHjd1wVbQGCaTGeez29ZL2nbLb2VJNSs5R come from?

response

The script with hash B5smJ9drvUuHjd1wVbQGCaTGeez29ZL2nbLb2VJNSs5R (address bc1px4hurvmluuakya3gqevvqdmggcn8ez2rdkht7mggguku3lyzamssuvvy74, a taproot script) currently holds a balance of 0 BTC — every satoshi it ever received has since been spent.

Here's the full picture of where its coins came from and went:

Origin (funding):

• It received a single deposit of 38,691 sats at block height 799,999, from transaction 32250e984c...e413d0.
• That funding transaction had one input — 664,200 sats from address bc1pa7zun82qw93m7k5306zvm2swcy9rrr09zlmzkv6kvheqxjrh504qk33au6 — which was split across 17 outputs (a batch/fan-out transaction). Your script was just one of ~9 recipients that each got 38,691 sats in that batch (one recipient, bc1qrcg5..., got a larger 40,000-sat share, and another was spent same-block).

Disposition (spending):

• All 38,691 sats were later spent at block height 800,000, across nine separate transactions, each redeeming 1,269 sats at a time (totaling 11,421 sats accounted for in what was returned) — this pattern (many small, equal-value spends from one deposit) is typical of an inscription/ordinal-style reveal or a similar batch protocol rather than a simple payment.

So in short: the coins came from a 17-way fan-out transaction funded by a single ~664k-sat input, and the script has since fully spent its balance down to zero, mostly via nine small, uniform-value transactions in the very next block.

prompt

Where did the output of transaction 0a84852aab6dadaf402a417c228a1de34348db2f1849c7837cd5b5718390e01c go next?

response

This transaction created 9 outputs, all worth 88,815 sats each (at block height 792,765), and all of them have already been spent:

Output address	Value	Spent at height
bc1pueta9xuwq6m766nnyk3j9pg8nzhjlklpactadhxcxz2gw5aawf4ss84k2c	88,815	792766
bc1ps9r77qy8yddpljf4hukrnuc8ltngrynszk0k5jk8aarg0cengarsjavury	88,815	792766
bc1punz8szzd4a5dju9mzg8ed748ysr86u0mm6vd6gxte4kjp8jpuujquvqgmg	88,815	792766
bc1pe6jkxhnk8cdn852py9y9lkgk4g5f7etv6en2uswq5ejdjxk955fqnvplar	88,815	792766
bc1pt5xnt66hehkj7txpk3l5ksle6jercgpywntswk7aejug29v4tadqe65wxy	88,815	792766
bc1p6hc92mpc9e5a4swkhcdmdrzq7pn9xer3hkg7qlw5tacrcy2la9dq69qf27	88,815	792767
bc1pq3f04lhr8yhapluguzezjyd225njnd48kul44k7fwyz7wrhcvn5s0t569a	88,815	792766
bc1pazwj2zq5tz4gk49kgfaex0lveu8tmarw45jtaz5qpjhmrnl92ptqpz2ky3	88,815	792766
bc1pqxxkme5c998td9ftzdwg9ec77jvxwcsz36m63v4nn28xs3gweljq4ksrxp	88,815	792766

So this looks like a fan-out/consolidation-style split — one input of 2,211,100 sats broken into 9 near-equal outputs — and all 9 were spent within a block or two, almost all in the very next block (792766).

Putting Transactions in Market Context

prompt

What was Bitcoin's price and the address with SHA256 3CTujXStH8J5Q87v4NqicBqNJgpbcr7U4EpfCQCfecWM balance around block 792485?

response

At block 792485 (median time ≈ June 2, 2023):

Bitcoin price: trading around $26,789–$26,821, closing near **$26,821** (volume ≈21,379,068 for the interval; VWAP ≈$26,802.69).

Address balance (script hash 3CTujXStH8J5Q87v4NqicBqNJgpbcr7U4EpfCQCfecWM, a P2SH-type script): 12,721,326 satoshis ≈ 0.1272 BTC, worth roughly $3,410 at that block's price.

prompt

Give me a full profile of transaction c92d733660abcaec1e40af4afd69fbee3658f2785798c6ef028ca30cef7eb322: fee, coin age, and where the money came from and went.

response

Here's the full profile for transaction c92d733660abcaec1e40af4afd69fbee3658f2785798c6ef028ca30cef7eb322:

Overview

• Confirmed in block: 792,765 (≈ June 4, 2023)
• Fee paid: 8,950 sats
• Total input value: 2,284,055 sats
• Total output value: 2,275,105 sats (difference = the fee)
• Inputs: 3 UTXOs, all from the same address
• Outputs: 2 UTXOs, to two different addresses

Where the money came from (inputs)

All three inputs were spent from the same P2SH address, 3GtMJEfsWqvWeYqf9ePYL3ANyWP5a2bBDf:

Value (sats)	Origin tx	Created at height	Coin age at spend
896,000	253f8e5a...9a427 (vout 2)	792,351	414 blocks (~2.9 days)
478,055	b6415aae...2be77 (vout 1)	792,485	280 blocks (~1.9 days)
910,000	20f5c28e...58257 (vout 2)	792,484	281 blocks (~1.95 days)

So this transaction consolidated three separate UTXOs sitting at the same address, ranging from about 2 to 3 days old (roughly 280–414 blocks), into a single spend.

Where the money went (outputs)

Value (sats)	Destination address	Status
64,005	3GtMJEfsWqvWeYqf9ePYL3ANyWP5a2bBDf (same input address — change)	Spent later, at height 794,273
2,211,100	bc1p45d7n8m7xyegawusx80memzfjgjn7fk7xfmjehpk56xn8t5ung4s7qegtq (Taproot/P2TR)	Spent immediately, same block (792,765)

Interpretation

This looks like a consolidation-and-transfer transaction: three UTXOs held at one P2SH address were combined and sent out mostly to a new Taproot address (bc1p...), with a small change amount (64,005 sats) returned to the original P2SH address. The bulk of the funds (2,211,100 sats) moved on almost immediately in the very same block it was created — suggesting it was quickly forwarded again rather than held.

prompt

What was Bitcoin's price and market cap when transaction c92d733660abcaec1e40af4afd69fbee3658f2785798c6ef028ca30cef7eb322 confirmed?

response

Transaction c92d7336...ef7eb322 confirmed in block 792765, mined around June 4, 2023, 04:21 UTC.

At that block:

• Bitcoin price: ~$27,064–$27,073, closing around **$27,071** (VWAP ≈$27,069)
• Market cap: ≈ $524.9 billion

Judging the Nature of Funds

prompt

Did the large payment in transaction c92d733660abcaec1e40af4afd69fbee3658f2785798c6ef028ca30cef7eb322 come from old, dormant coins or freshly moved ones?

response

All three inputs were consolidated from the same address (3GtMJEfsWqvWeYqf9ePYL3ANyWP5a2bBDf), and none of them were old coins:

• Input ages at spending: 280, 281, and 414 blocks — roughly 2 to 3 days old (assuming ~10 min/block).
• The MinInputAge across the whole transaction was 280 blocks, confirming the coins were all recently created and moved quickly.

So the large output (2,211,100 sats, ~0.0221 BTC, sent to a Taproot address bc1p45d...) was funded by freshly moved coins, not dormant/old ones. The remaining small output (64,005 sats) went back to the same source address as change, and it too was spent quickly (94 blocks later, at height 794273).

Bottom line: this transaction consolidated three UTXOs that were each only a few days old and forwarded most of the value onward — there's no sign of long-dormant coins being reactivated here.

prompt

Is the output of transaction c92d733660abcaec1e40af4afd69fbee3658f2785798c6ef028ca30cef7eb322 still unspent, and what's the current balance of that address?

response

Transaction c92d7336... created two outputs, and both are already spent — neither is currently unspent:

Output	Address	Value (sats)	Created @ height	Spent @ height
vout 0	3GtMJEfsWqvWeYqf9ePYL3ANyWP5a2bBDf	64,005	792,765	794,273
vout 1	bc1p45d7n8m7xyegawusx80memzfjgjn7fk7xfmjehpk56xn8t5ung4s7qegtq	2,211,100	792,765	792,765 (same block — spent immediately)

Current balances of those two addresses (as of the latest indexed block):

• 3GtMJEfsWqvWeYqf9ePYL3ANyWP5a2bBDf: 13,492,546 sats (~0.1349 BTC) — this address has ongoing activity beyond just this tx.
• bc1p45d7n8m7xyegawusx80memzfjgjn7fk7xfmjehpk56xn8t5ung4s7qegtq: 0 sats — fully spent out, nothing currently held there.

If you meant a specific vout (0 or 1) let me know and I can dig further into what spent it.

prompt

How has script with SHA256 iNNhp45nQR4aoodwbGZQPZrYA5EhCHKbXQ8JP7zy6UQ UTXO churn looked over time?

response

This script's UTXO activity is extremely concentrated — it's not really "churn over time" so much as one burst of activity.

Timeline:

• Block 792765: The script receives a single UTXO worth 88,815 sats (this is essentially its only "real" inbound funding).
• Block 792766 (the very next block): That 88,815-sat UTXO is spent in transaction 472cedfa..., which fans it out into 24 nearly-identical outputs of 2,856 sats each, all still belonging to this same script.
• Same block (792766), almost immediately: 23 of those 24 new 2,856-sat outputs are each redeemed individually in 23 separate transactions.
• Block 792767 (one block later): The last remaining 2,856-sat output is finally spent.

Summary stats:

• Total transactions touching this script: 50
• Total received: 157,359 sats — total sent: 157,359 sats (fully churned, nothing left unspent)
• Active lifespan: just 2 blocks (792765 → 792767), roughly 10–20 minutes of Bitcoin time

Pattern interpretation: This looks like a classic fan-out-then-drain pattern — a single funding UTXO is split into many equal-sized "change" outputs in one transaction, and each of those is spent again almost immediately, all within the same block or the very next one. This is typical of mixing/consolidation services, batch payment tools, or automated wallet software distributing funds, rather than a script that sees gradual, sustained use over time. There's no long-tail activity — it's a single concentrated burst.