Skip to main content
Glama

land_resources_fragment_history

Retrieve land fragment-history rows for a transaction ID from Splinterlands, returning raw values unchanged. Use a trx_id from reward-action rows to inspect the records the upstream returns.

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. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.2
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv0.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
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 succeeds: it documents the response envelope, field types, preservation of numeric/boolean values, non-interpretation of ambiguous fields, empty-array behavior for fake ids, and the multi-deed caveat. This is far more than minimal.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The main purpose is front-loaded, but the description is very long and includes epistemic caveats such as 'this is a bounded observation' and claims about players that do not help an agent invoke the tool. Several sentences are repetitive, so it is not appropriately concise.

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 is remarkably complete: it covers the response structure, data fields, type handling, empty-array ambiguity, input provenance, and non-interpretation behavior. An agent has enough context to call it correctly and interpret its result.

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?

The schema only specifies trx_id as a string with minLength 1. The description adds meaning by explaining it is the upstream transaction id, appears in the endpoint path, can be obtained from reward-action rows, and that a fake id returns an empty array rather than an error.

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 operation: listing fragment-history rows for a single transaction id, and even names the upstream endpoint shape. It also distinguishes the route from deed-history tools by explicitly warning that these rows are not the private history of the source deed.

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 concrete usage context: the tool is reachable only by chaining from reward-action rows because no other measured route exposes a trx_id. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling tool or stating explicit when-not-to-use cases, but the input-source guidance is actionable.

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