Skip to main content
Glama
Silverkazimi

splinterlands-mcp

by Silverkazimi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

player_unclaimed_balance_history

Retrieve a player's unclaimed balance history for a specified token (DEC or SPS), showing reward actions, amounts, blocks, and statuses. Requires username and token_type.

Instructions

Return one account's unclaimed-balance history for one token from GET /players/unclaimed_balance_history. Both username and token_type are required, and omitting token_type returns HTTP 200 carrying the message that player and token are required rather than an HTTP failure. The response is a bare array; each row carried a reward action, an id, the account, token, type, a string amount, a block number, a transaction id, dates, a destination account and a status. On the captured account SPS returned rows while DEC returned an empty array. Only DEC and SPS were tried on this route. This server applies its general 100-row and 256 KB result bounds to the array and does not claim the bounded answer is the full upstream history.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usernameYes
token_typeYes

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the non-obvious HTTP 200 error response, the exact array structure with field names, observed behavior for SPS vs DEC, scope of testing, and server-side row/size limits that affect completeness. This exceeds typical 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 well-structured, front-loading the main purpose, then layering essential behavioral details. Every sentence adds value (error behavior, response shape, limits), though some meta commentary (e.g., 'Only DEC and SPS were tried') could be trimmed without losing critical guidance.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers required inputs, error behavior, response format, and result limits. It gives enough for an agent to call the tool correctly and interpret the results, including the bounded nature of the response.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must define parameters. It notes both are required and gives token examples (SPS/DEC), but does not explicitly explain that username is the player account name or that token_type is a token symbol. It partially compensates but leaves semantic definition incomplete.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('one account's unclaimed-balance history for one token'), and ties it to a concrete endpoint. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tool 'player_unclaimed_balances' (which likely covers current balances, not history).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly states that both username and token_type are required and describes the error behavior when token_type is omitted. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the closely named sibling 'player_unclaimed_balances', leaving the selection context implied rather than 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