Vitruveo Chain Tools MCP

scan address transactions

scan_address_transactions

Read-only

Paginate an address's incoming or outgoing transactions, group decoded methods, optionally sum uint quantities for one method, and flag incomplete scan runs.

Instructions

Paginate public address incoming/outgoing transactions, group decoded methods, optionally sum uint quantity for one method, and flag incomplete runs. NOT proof of sales.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "scan_address_transactions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`filter`	No	to
`address`	Yes
`maxPages`	No
`maxRecords`	No
`methodName`	No
`includeHashes`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0-rc.1Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral detail: pagination happens, decoded methods are grouped, and incomplete runs are flagged. However, it never explains what causes an 'incomplete run', how partial results are surfaced, or how the two pagination limits interact, which matters for a scanning tool that can be truncated.

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?

A single compact sentence packs the primary operation first, then secondary capabilities, then the caveat. Phrasing like 'sum uint quantity' is terse to the point of ambiguity, but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With six parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should explain result shape (grouped methods, sums, incomplete-run flags) and the undocumented parameters. It leaves two parameters entirely unaddressed and the returned structure only vaguely implied.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across six parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely fails. It hints at maxPages ('paginate'), filter ('incoming/outgoing'), and methodName ('for one method'), but never mentions maxRecords or includeHashes at all, and doesn't clarify the default 'to' direction or the uppercase/lowercase method-name convention.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Paginate public address incoming/outgoing transactions') and adds distinctive capabilities (decoded-method grouping, optional uint summation, incomplete-run flagging). It never names its closest sibling address_history_page, so differentiation is left implicit.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to choose this over address_history_page or transaction_details, nor any stated prerequisites. The only usage-adjacent statement is the disclaimer 'NOT proof of sales', which is a warning rather than routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server