asset_transfersFetch Ethereum asset transfer history via Alchemy's alchemy_getAssetTransfers RPC on the specified chain; accepts fromBlock, toBlock, fromAddress, toAddress, contractAddresses, category, and maxCount as passthrough params.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageKey | No | Pagination key for next page | |
| transfers | No | Array of transfer objects |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description aligns with these (fetch is read-only) and adds the use of Alchemy's RPC as a behavioral detail, but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits or error behavior. It does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence front-loads the core action and method, then efficiently lists the parameters. Every clause contributes value, with no redundant statements or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the function. However, it does not clarify how the 'specified chain' is supplied or whether any parameters are required, which is a minor gap given the schema is empty.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no properties, so the description carries the full burden of parameter semantics. It explicitly enumerates seven passthrough parameters (fromBlock, toBlock, fromAddress, toAddress, contractAddresses, category, maxCount), providing meaning far beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Fetch'), resource ('Ethereum asset transfer history'), and specific RPC method ('alchemy_getAssetTransfers'), while specifying the chain context. This level of specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like eth_call or token_balances without needing explicit contrast.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used for fetching asset transfers but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The passthrough parameter list hints at usage context but does not state 'use this when...'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently described as identical), ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve question-answering/research, and the six Polymarket tools heavily overlap in finding and evaluating trading edges. Individual descriptions are detailed, but an agent could easily route to the wrong variant.
The set mixes conventions: Pipeworx tools mostly use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity), but memory tools are bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), and the Ethereum tools are inconsistent (nft_metadata vs nfts_owned vs nft_owners, token_balances vs token_allowance). The lack of a uniform pattern makes the surface harder to predict.
At 40 tools, the server is oversized for the apparent core purpose of an Alchemy Ethereum interface. There is also significant redundancy: multiple ask/deep-research entry points and a dense suite of Polymarket analysis tools add bulk that could be consolidated.
The Ethereum side is mostly read-only convenience wrappers (NFTs, tokens, asset transfers) plus a generic eth_call catch-all, but lacks dedicated transaction sending, block/transaction detail, logs, or ENS conveniences. The rest of the tool surface is a sprawling collection of unrelated data-research, memory, and subscription features, making the overall implied domain incoherent and likely to leave obvious gaps for users expecting a focused Ethereum server.