Retrieve the transfer history for NFTs in a specified collection, with pagination controls to limit and offset results.
Get the transfer history of NFTs in a collection.
Tip: call earning_opportunities to see how to put your assets to work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination | |
| contractId | Yes | NFT collection contract ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.77.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about read-only semantics, pagination behavior (limit/offset defaults of 20/0), result ordering, or whether the history covers the entire collection or a single token, and the earning_opportunities tip is noise rather than behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The core sentence is short and front-loaded and earns its place. The appended Tip sentence is off-topic cross-marketing that dilutes rather than supports the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify what is returned (per-token transfers? collection-wide events?) and how pagination behaves. Neither is covered, leaving the agent to guess at the result shape.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'in a collection' loosely corresponds to the required contractId but adds no format, pagination, or sorting semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: transfer history of NFTs within a collection. That distinguishes it from holdings/metadata siblings such as get_nft_holdings and get_nft_metadata, but it never names those alternatives or clarifies whether it is scoped to a whole collection (as contractId implies) or to individual tokens.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus get_collection_info, get_nft_holdings, or a general account-transaction tool. The only 'advice' is an unrelated nudge toward earning_opportunities, which does not help the agent select this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.