Skip to main content
Glama

Avalanche AVAX MCP

by io.github.Airpote

onchain_activity

Time-windowed on-chain activity. scope=chain/address returns the transaction COUNT over the last hours (max 720h = 30 days; for longer windows use chain_stats series or onchain_query day-based ops) plus a recent sample. For a token/contract use scope=token (transfers). scope=primary covers P/X-chain and DEFAULTS to P-Chain when no blockchainId is given (so "last N P-chain transactions" just works). A value with no scope defaults to address.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
feedNotransactions (default) | transfers | erc20Transfers | nftTransfers
hoursNoLook-back window in hours for EVM transaction feeds (default: 2 for chain, max 720)
scopeYesaddress | chain | token | contract | primary
valueNoAddress/contract/token (omit for scope=chain)
chainIdNoEVM chain ID (default: C-Chain for the network)
networkNoNetwork (default: mainnet)
pageSizeNoMax rows (default: 25)
toTimestampNoUnix end time (scope=primary)
blockchainIdNoBlockchain ID for scope=primary (default: P-Chain)
fromTimestampNoUnix start time (scope=primary)

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns transaction count and recent samples, time-windowed, with defaults for various scopes. Read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Concise but packed with information. Front-loaded with core purpose, then details. Slightly dense; could benefit from bullet points for readability.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Covers input semantics well for 10 parameters and various scopes. However, lacks description of output format (what fields in the sample) and pagination behavior. Adequate but could be more complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description adds context beyond schema: explains effect of scope (chain returns count, primary defaults to P-Chain), hours max, and defaults for value and blockchainId.

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 it returns time-windowed on-chain activity with transaction count and recent samples. It distinguishes itself from siblings like chain_stats and onchain_query by mentioning alternatives for longer windows.

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?

Provides guidance on different scopes (address, chain, token, primary, contract) and feeds, with defaults and constraints. Suggests alternatives for longer windows but does not explicitly list all when-not-to-use scenarios.

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

All Avalanche AVAX MCP 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools are redundant due to compatibility aliases (avalanche_docs_* vs docs_*, blockchain_get_* vs onchain_lookup) and overlapping functionality (chain_stats vs onchain_query, onchain_activity vs onchain_query ops, acp_list vs info_acps). Agents may struggle to select the correct tool when multiple appear to serve the same purpose, despite descriptions clarifying aliases.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming patterns are inconsistent: some tools use noun_verb (acp_list, docs_fetch), some use verb_noun (build_plan), and others use prefixes like platform_get_, info_get_, and onchain_. The mix of styles (snake_case, noun phrases, verb phrases) makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

With 48 tools, the count is high and inflated by compatibility aliases and granular platform_get_* wrappers. The scope spans multiple domains (docs, on-chain, platform API, ACPs, console), which could be better modularized. Many tools are trivial variants (e.g., platform_get_block vs platform_get_block_by_height) adding unnecessary bulk.

Completeness4/5

The server provides thorough read-only coverage for Avalanche: docs search, ACP management, on-chain lookups, indexed stats, platform API getters, and console flow guidance. While there is no transaction submission (likely intentional), the surface covers most queries a developer would need, with minor gaps like detailed token transfer history.

Resources