Skip to main content
Glama

XDaLa Workflow Builder

by io.github.xgr-network

Search native XGR transactions for flow analysis

search_xgr_transactions
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find indexed native-XGR transactions using time, value and address filters before choosing a transaction for Relation Graph or Value Flow analysis. Typical use: all native transfers in the last 24 hours above a given XGR/wei amount. Results are read-only and cursor-paginated for latest/oldest sorting.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNoSort order. largest is intentionally a bounded single-page picker view.
limitNoMaximum number of records to return.
cursorNoCursor returned by a previous latest/oldest search.
addressNoOptional address that may appear on either side of the transfer.
toAddressNoOptional exact recipient address.
fromAddressNoOptional exact sender address.
maxValueWeiNoOptional maximum native XGR transfer value in wei.
minValueWeiNoMinimum native XGR transfer value in wei.
toTimestampNoOptional inclusive Unix-seconds upper time bound.
fromTimestampNoOptional inclusive Unix-seconds lower time bound.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesStructured result data returned by the XGR MCP gateway.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.), the description adds useful behavioral context: 'Results are read-only and cursor-paginated for latest/oldest sorting' and the 'indexed' nature of the data. This provides transparency about pagination and potential data lag without contradicting annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a typical use case and a behavioral note. Every sentence adds distinct information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the output schema exists and all 10 parameters are fully described in the schema, the description appropriately focuses on purpose, use case, and pagination behavior. It is complete for a well-structured search tool with strong annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances parameter meaning by grouping filters ('time, value and address filters') and providing a concrete example ('all native transfers in the last 24 hours above a given XGR/wei amount') that implies how to combine fromTimestamp, minValueWei, etc. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 a specific action: 'Find indexed native-XGR transactions using time, value and address filters' and explicitly ties to Relation Graph or Value Flow analysis. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_transactions by narrowing to native-XGR and the flow-analysis use case.

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?

It provides explicit context: 'before choosing a transaction for Relation Graph or Value Flow analysis' and a 'Typical use' example. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use search_transactions instead), so it falls short of a 5.

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

All XDaLa Workflow Builder 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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There are many overlapping session-listing tools (list_xdala_sessions, get_recent_xdala_sessions, find_latest_xdala_session, list_xdala_session_ids, get_latest_session_payload) and duplicate validation tools (validate_xdala_bundle is an alias for validate_xgr_multibundle). Descriptions help but boundaries are still unclear.

Naming Consistency4/5

The verb_noun snake_case pattern is consistent across nearly all tools (get_, list_, create_, cancel_, validate_). Minor inconsistencies include the alias validate_xdala_bundle and interchangeable verbs like get_ vs read_ vs resolve_ for similar read operations.

Tool Count1/5

With 95 tools, this is far beyond the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, the sheer number makes the tool surface unwieldy and difficult for an agent to navigate.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of operations: handoffs, session queries, transaction exploration, contract reads, validation, gas requests, and purchases. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct workflow editing tools), but overall the surface is remarkably complete.

Resources