Skip to main content
Glama

land_resources_owned

List resource holdings for a player and resource symbol, showing region, amount, and timestamps as returned by Splinterlands. Handles case-insensitive resource input.

Instructions

List the resource-holding rows the upstream returns for one account and one resource, as GET /land/resources/owned returns them. A successful response is {status, data}, where data is an array of rows carrying id, region_uid, player, amount, resource_symbol, created_date, last_updated_date, region_name and region_number. All numeric fields are JSON numbers, and this server returns them unchanged; it does not convert, round, total or compare them, and a change in their wire type would be reported as a malformed response rather than converted silently. The upstream matches resource case-sensitively against its exact symbol. This tool uppercases the resource argument before making the request, but it does not enforce an enum: the observed symbols are not an exhaustive set. An unrecognised symbol returns an empty array that this server cannot distinguish from an account owning none of that resource. A missing player or resource produced data:null at HTTP 200 upstream; data:null therefore indicates a missing parameter in that observation rather than an empty holding, and this tool refuses either missing parameter rather than return that response. An empty array is a successful answer and does not establish that the account exists or that the account owns no resource beyond the request's returned rows. This tool reports the rows the upstream returned and nothing else: it does not infer holdings for symbols or regions the response does not list.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
playerNo
resourceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so thoroughly. It explains response shape, numeric-wire-type preservation, case-sensitive upstream matching, uppercasing behavior, missing-parameter semantics, the meaning of empty arrays, and the absence of inference. This is exemplary transparency.

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 almost every sentence earns its place given the absence of annotations and output schema. It opens with the core purpose and response shape, then layers edge-case caveats in a logical order. It is dense rather than bloated.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation safety profile, yet the description fully explains return values, expected field names, missing-parameter behavior, empty-array semantics, and the tool's intentional refusal to infer. An agent has what it needs to call this tool correctly and interpret results.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning beyond the bare string properties. It does for both parameters: player is tied to 'one account' and resource receives detailed treatment around uppercasing, exact upstream matching, and non-enum behavior. Player semantics are slightly less explicit, so not a perfect 5.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: list resource-holding rows for one account and one resource, matching a named upstream endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from the many aggregate land_resources_* siblings.

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 establishes clear context for when this tool is relevant: it is the per-account, per-resource ownership listing tool. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can select it confidently.

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