Skip to main content
Glama
0xfreak0

sui-analytics-mcp

by 0xfreak0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get transaction

get_transaction
Read-only

Fetch a Sui transaction by digest and receive sender, status, gas, balance changes, and fully decoded events and actions—no GraphQL needed.

Instructions

Get a Sui transaction by its digest. Returns sender, status, gas, balance changes, protocol-aware decoded actions (e.g. 'swap on Cetus', 'deposit on Suilend'), and events WITH their decoded fields — so there is no need to hand-write GraphQL to read an event's values. Protocols are identified from the events as well as the Move calls, which matters when a transaction calls an obfuscated wrapper: protocols_from_events_only marks that case. Funds can move without any coin object: address_balance_ops lists every deposit to and withdrawal from an address balance, funds_withdrawals the address-balance withdrawals the transaction requested, and gas_source whether gas came from coins or the gas owner's address balance. created_for lists objects minted to someone other than the sender; coins are never listed there, and when no other object moved coins_delivered_to names the addresses other than the sender that gained coins. mutated_capabilities lists a sender-owned capability the call mutated in place (a nonce, a rate limit) without changing its owner — the authorising capability itself, present even when nothing changed hands.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
digestYesTransaction digest (Base58)
networkNoNetwork: 'mainnet' (default) | 'testnet' | 'devnet'
max_event_field_bytesNoOptional byte cap on decoded event fields. UNSET BY DEFAULT: every event comes back with its fields, because an investigation must not be silently working from a subset. Set this only when you knowingly want to bound the payload — anything skipped is reported — or set 0 to skip decoding entirely.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.20.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / network / description
      Previous value: -"Which Sui network to run this call against: 'mainnet' (default), 'testnet', or 'devnet'. Set this per-call — different tool calls in the same session can target different networks (e.g. to compare a value on testnet against mainnet)."New value: +"Network: 'mainnet' (default) | 'testnet' | 'devnet'"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.12.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / max_event_field_bytes
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional byte cap on decoded event fields. UNSET BY DEFAULT: every event comes back with its fields, because an investigation must not be silently working from a subset. Set this only when you knowingly want to bound the payload — anything skipped is reported — or set 0 to skip decoding entirely.",
+  "maximum": 500000,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  3. First observedv1.5.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does so richly: explaining how protocols are identified (events and Move calls), the meaning of protocols_from_events_only, address-balance movements, gas source, created_for, coins_delivered_to, and mutated_capabilities. This far exceeds the annotations and provides deep insight into what the tool does and why.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a long, dense paragraph with many clauses and qualifiers. While it is packed with information, it is not concise and could benefit from bullet points or clear separation of fields. The first sentence is clear, but the subsequent flow is hard to parse quickly. It is comprehensive but sacrifices readability for completeness.

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 tool's complexity (many output fields and nuanced behaviors) and the absence of an output schema, the description does an excellent job of covering all essential aspects. It explains each major return field and its implications, including edge cases like obfuscated wrappers, address-balance movements, and capability mutations. Nothing critical appears missing for an agent to correctly understand and invoke the tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema, particularly for max_event_field_bytes, by explaining the default behavior (all fields returned) and when to set it (intentional bounding) and that skipped fields are reported. It also clarifies that the digest is Base58 and network defaults to mainnet, though these are already in the schema. Overall, the description enriches parameter understanding.

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 tool gets a Sui transaction by digest and enumerates the specific return fields (sender, status, gas, balance changes, protocol-aware decoded actions, events with decoded fields). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_transactions (which likely lists multiple) and query_transactions (which searches/filters). The unique selling point—no need to hand-write GraphQL for event fields—is explicitly called out.

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?

The description provides strong contextual cues about what the tool returns, allowing an agent to infer when it's appropriate (e.g., when needing decoded events or protocol-aware actions). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, unlike the high-caliber example that named a specific sibling. The guidance is clear but not as explicit.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools