GoTRON MCP Server

get_transaction_history

Destructive

Get transaction history for a TRON address via TronGrid REST API. Returns a compact summary per transaction. Use a small limit and paginate with fingerprint to control response size

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Number of results to return (1-200, default 10). Start small to avoid large responses; use fingerprint to paginate for more
`address`	Yes	TRON base58 address (starts with T)
`only_to`	No	Only show incoming transactions
`only_from`	No	Only show outgoing transactions
`fingerprint`	No	Pagination cursor from previous response meta.fingerprint — pass to fetch the next page
`max_timestamp`	No	Maximum block timestamp in milliseconds
`min_timestamp`	No	Minimum block timestamp in milliseconds
`only_confirmed`	No	Only return confirmed transactions

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

AddedMar 22, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description says 'Get transaction history' and 'Returns', implying a read-only operation, while annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. This is a direct contradiction, and the description provides no additional behavioral context to resolve it.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. The second sentence offers a relevant operational tip without unnecessary words. No fluff or repetition.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and contradictory annotations, this description is too thin. It does not address the filtering parameters (only_to/only_from, min/max_timestamp, only_confirmed) or clarify the destructiveHint annotation. The return format is only vaguely described as 'compact summary'.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's mention of 'small limit' and 'fingerprint' adds no new meaning beyond the schema's detailed parameter descriptions. No parameter semantics beyond the schema are provided.

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 identifies the action (Get), the resource (transaction history for a TRON address), and the return format (compact summary). It is distinguishably scoped for address-level history, setting it apart from siblings like get_transaction or get_trc20_transfers.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (for a TRON address) and provides a practical usage tip about using a small limit and paginating with fingerprint. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as using get_trc20_transfers for TRC20-specific transfers.

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

All GoTRON MCP Server tools Inspect

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

Disambiguation3/5

Several tool groups have overlapping responsibilities (e.g., get_energy_prices/get_bandwidth_prices/get_chain_parameters, get_pending_transactions/get_pending_by_address/is_transaction_pending, and analyze_account vs get_account plus its resource/permission variants). These create boundary confusion despite clear descriptions, and with 43 tools an agent will likely select the wrong one occasionally.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_account, transfer_trx, delegate_resource, unfreeze_balance). Even the few multi-word verbs (estimate_energy, trigger_constant_contract) remain predictable. No camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.

Tool Count2/5

With 43 tools, the server is heavy. While the TRON domain is broad, the tool surface is bloated with many near-synonyms and split functionalities that could be consolidated. The rubric flags 25+ tools as too many; 43 clearly exceeds that.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of read and transaction-building operations, including staking, governance, contracts, and TRC20. However, it lacks critical lifecycle steps: there is no sign or broadcast tool, and no ability to deploy contracts or create accounts. This is a significant gap for a tool that returns unsigned transactions.

Resources

Need Help?