Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Alchemy MCP Server

Alchemy MCP Server

Official
by alchemyplatform
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

fetchAddressTransactionHistory

Retrieve transaction history for wallet addresses across multiple chains, with human-readable dates and ETH values. Supports pagination to navigate large result sets.

Instructions

Get transaction history for wallet addresses across multiple chains, with human-readable dates and ETH values

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": {
      "addresses": "<addresses>"
    },
    "name": "fetchAddressTransactionHistory"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressesYesA list of wallet address and network pairs
beforeNoThe cursor that points to the previous set of results. Use this to paginate through the results.
afterNoThe cursor that points to the next set of results. Use this to paginate through the results.
limitNoThe number of results to return. Default is 25. Max is 100

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.5
    • changedInput schema / properties / addresses / items / properties / networks / description
      Previous value: -"The blockchain networks to query. e.g. [\"eth-mainnet\", \"base-mainnet\"]"New value: +"Network IDs. Call listSupportedNetworks for all options. e.g. [\"eth-mainnet\", \"base-mainnet\"]"
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the output includes 'human-readable dates and ETH values', which hints at transformation but does not confirm that the tool performs a read-only operation. It does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or any potential side effects. The description is too brief to be transparent beyond the basic action.

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 a single sentence of 17 words, highly concise. It avoids redundancy and front-loads the key purpose: 'Get transaction history'. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the parameter mention from the output format. Still, it earns a high mark for being trim and to the point.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context. It explains the output format but omits details about pagination (cursor usage) and the structure of the response. With many sibling tools, a reference to related tools would improve completeness. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it only describes the output format. The schema already explains addresses, networks, cursors, and limit adequately. The description does not improve parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action 'Get transaction history' and specifies the resource 'wallet addresses across multiple chains'. It also adds unique value by mentioning 'human-readable dates and ETH values'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like fetchTransfers, which likely return raw data. The verb+resource+scope is specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention pagination, or limitations such as max addresses per call. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it. Sibling tools like fetchTransfers or getTransactionReceipts are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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