Skip to main content
Glama

What an address has been doing

singularityagent__history
Read-only

Recent transactions for an address on one chain, newest first. Read completeness before the entries: an empty list can mean no activity, an unconfigured indexer, or a family that cannot answer, and those are different answers. Solana, Bitcoin and Cosmos answer from their own endpoints; EVM history needs SINGULARITY_ETHERSCAN_KEY and says so when it is missing rather than returning nothing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainYesChain id or alias. History is single-chain.
limitNoExact entries to return. Where `budget` is also given the smaller of the two wins, so neither can talk the other into a bigger response.
budgetNoHow much of each list to return: 'small' (10 items, for a tight context), 'standard' (the default), 'full' (this source's maximum), or a number for an exact count. Omitting it changes nothing. Anything cut is reported in `completeness` as truncated with counts, never dropped silently.
cursorNoContinuation token from a previous call. Opaque — pass it back unchanged.
addressYesAddress to look up.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Previous value: -trueNew value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties
      Added value: +{
      +  "address": {
      +    "description": "Address to look up.",
      +    "type": "string"
      +  },
      +  "budget": {
      +    "description": "How much of each list to return: 'small' (10 items, for a tight context), 'standard' (the default), 'full' (this source's maximum), or a number for an exact count. Omitting it changes nothing. Anything cut is reported in `completeness` as truncated with counts, never dropped silently.",
      +    "type": [
      +      "string",
      +      "number"
      +    ]
      +  },
      +  "chain": {
      +    "description": "Chain id or alias. History is single-chain.",
      +    "type": "string"
      +  },
      +  "cursor": {
      +    "description": "Continuation token from a previous call. Opaque — pass it back unchanged.",
      +    "type": "string"
      +  },
      +  "limit": {
      +    "description": "Exact entries to return. Where `budget` is also given the smaller of the two wins, so neither can talk the other into a bigger response.",
      +    "type": "number"
      +  }
      +}
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
      +  "address",
      +  "chain"
      +]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context beyond these: it explains that an empty list can mean three distinct conditions (no activity, unconfigured indexer, or family cannot answer) and that EVM history requires a key and will explicitly say so. This goes beyond the annotations to disclose failure modes and data provenance.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then key caveats about completeness and chain-specific behavior. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Without an output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining result interpretation. It explicitly tells the agent to read `completeness` before entries and explains the different meanings of an empty list. It also covers chain-specific endpoints and key requirements. This is complete for an agent to call and interpret correctly.

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%, so all 5 parameters are documented with descriptions, including the interplay between budget and limit. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only mentions the completeness output field, which is not a parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Recent transactions for an address on one chain, newest first.' It clearly distinguishes from multi-chain tools and other singularityagent tools (e.g., balance, transaction) by emphasizing single-chain scope. The title adds a human-readable summary.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use this tool (for history) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It provides context about chain-specific behavior and completeness interpretation, but no direct routing to sibling tools. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.