Skip to main content
Glama

land_resources_history

Retrieve resource-history rows for a given transaction ID from Splinterlands Land endpoints, returning raw upstream data without modification or interpretation.

Instructions

List the resource-history rows the upstream returns for one transaction id, as GET /land/resources/history/{trx_id} returns them. A successful response is {status, data}, where data is an array of rows carrying id, region_number, player, amount, end_balance, operation_id, resource_id, trx_id, created_date, balance_history and counterparty. The numeric fields are JSON numbers, including signed amount values; balance_history is an array; this server returns these fields unchanged and does not convert, round, total or compare them. These rows are not the private history of the deed whose reward-action row supplied the input: in one captured transaction, both measured rows named the same player, that player was not the source deed's owner, and the rows carried no deed identifier, so nothing in the response ties them to that deed. 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 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, and does not claim what any numeric figure means.

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the exact response shape, that fields are returned unchanged without conversion or comparison, that a fake id yields an empty array, and that the observation is bounded to one transaction.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long, but every sentence contributes essential caveats about behavior, limitations, and reachability. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds necessary context, so the length is justified despite lacking brevity.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully specifies the response structure, field types, and the meaning of an empty array. It also covers the only parameter's provenance and edge cases, making it complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 compensates by explaining the trx_id's origin (reward-action rows) and the consequence of a fake one (empty data). It adds meaning beyond the schema's mere string type.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the resource-history rows the upstream returns for one transaction id,' and references the exact endpoint. It clearly distinguishes this from the many sibling land_resources_* tools by scoping it to a single trx_id.

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 explains that the tool is reachable only by chaining from a reward-action row that provides a trx_id, and that no other measured route surfaces one. It also warns against misusing it as the deed's private history, but does not name alternative tools explicitly.

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