Skip to main content
Glama

SODAX Builders MCP

by io.github.gosodax
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

sodax_get_user_transactions

Read-only

Get intent/transaction history for a specific wallet address

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of transactions to return (1-100)
formatNoResponse format: 'json' for raw data or 'markdown' for formatted textmarkdown
offsetNoNumber of transactions to skip for pagination
toBlockNoInclusive upper bound on blockNumber (chain-native ordering)
fromBlockNoInclusive lower bound on blockNumber (chain-native ordering)
userAddressYesThe wallet address to look up (e.g., '0x...')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / fromBlock
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Inclusive lower bound on blockNumber (chain-native ordering)",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / toBlock
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Inclusive upper bound on blockNumber (chain-native ordering)",
+  "type": "number"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the semantic of 'history' (multiple entries) and wallet filtering, but does not disclose pagination behavior, data ordering, or response structure beyond what the schema presents. With annotations present, this is adequate although not rich.

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, focused sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary verbosity. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple historical lookup tool with detailed schema and annotations, the description provides sufficient context. However, it does not clarify what distinguishes 'intent' from 'transaction' or state that the result is a list, though the format parameter and sibling tool names partially cover this. Overall, the description is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, including limit, format, offset, fromBlock, toBlock, and userAddress. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action (Get), the resource (intent/transaction history), and the scope (specific wallet address). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sodax_get_intent or sodax_get_transaction by specifying a history-oriented, wallet-scoped lookup.

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 usage when needing transaction history for a wallet, but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools are not referenced, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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

All SODAX Builders MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources