Skip to main content
Glama

land_resources_fragment_history

Retrieve fragment-history rows for a given transaction id, as returned by Splinterlands' land resources endpoint. Use this to inspect the raw data associated with a reward-action transaction.

Instructions

List the fragment-history rows the upstream returns for one transaction id, as GET /land/resources/fragment_history/{trx_id} returns them. A successful response is {status, data}, where data is an array of rows carrying id, reward_action_id, land_work_type_id, land_project_number, tract_number, region_number, deed_uid, fragment_type, fragment_found, fragment_chance, fragment_roll, trx_id, block_num, created_date, last_updated_date, labors_luck_uid, labors_luck_chance, labors_luck_roll, labors_luck_pool_pick and labors_luck_treasures_left. The numeric fields are JSON numbers and fragment_found is a boolean; this server returns them unchanged and does not convert, round, total or compare them. The nullable fields are returned as received; the response does not state what fragment_chance or fragment_roll measures, and this tool does not interpret them. These rows are not the private history of the deed whose reward-action row supplied the input: in one captured transaction, the two measured rows carried differing deed_uid values, neither matching the source deed, so that transaction id covered records for more than one deed. The rows carried no player field, so this observation makes no claim about players. This is a bounded observation from those two rows in that one transaction, not a claim about every transaction. This route must not be described as that deed's history. A fake transaction id returned data:[] rather than an error, so an empty array establishes neither that the id exists nor that the transaction has no fragment-history rows. No measured route surfaces a trx_id except reward-action rows, so this tool is reachable only by chaining from one of those rows; otherwise a caller has no measured way to obtain its input. This tool reports the rows returned by the upstream and nothing else.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
trx_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the exact response envelope, field list, JSON number vs boolean behavior, no conversion/rounding/interpretation, nullable field handling, empty-array behavior for fake ids, multi-deed observations, and the fact that it reports only upstream rows. This is exceptional transparency for a one-parameter list tool.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: response format, field types, non-interpretation, nullability, multi-deed evidence, empty-array caveat, and reachability constraints. It is front-loaded with the purpose and endpoint, and the caveats are ordered logically. The final sentence reinforces scope without becoming padding.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description fully compensates by documenting the response shape, all notable fields, data types, edge cases, and the only known input source. A caller can correctly invoke the tool and interpret the results without external documentation. Nothing essential is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that trx_id is a transaction id used in the endpoint path, that a fake id returns data:[] rather than an error, and that the only measured way to obtain a valid id is chaining from reward-action rows. It does not give an example format or explicitly define the parameter's lifecycle, but the added context goes well beyond the bare string 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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List the fragment-history rows the upstream returns for one transaction id', and names the exact upstream endpoint. This clearly separates it from sibling history tools like land_resources_history or land_resources_rewardactions. The scope is unambiguous: one transaction id, one upstream response shape.

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 gives strong context on when the tool can be used: it is reachable only by chaining from reward-action rows because no other measured route exposes a trx_id. It also provides clear when-not guidance, such as not describing the route as a deed's history and noting that an empty array proves neither existence nor absence. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or explicitly state when to prefer one over another.

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