Skip to main content
Glama
covalenthq

GoldRush MCP Server

by covalenthq

nft_check_ownership_token_id

Verify ownership of a specific NFT token within a collection by checking blockchain data for a given wallet address, collection contract, and token ID.

Instructions

Commonly used to verify ownership of a specific token (ERC-721 or ERC-1155) within a collection. Required: chainName (blockchain network), walletAddress (wallet address), collectionContract (NFT collection), tokenId (specific token ID). Returns ownership status for the specific token ID.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNameYesThe blockchain network to query (e.g., 'eth-mainnet', 'matic-mainnet', 'bsc-mainnet').
walletAddressYesThe wallet address to check NFT ownership for. Passing in an ENS, RNS, Lens Handle, or an Unstoppable Domain resolves automatically.
collectionContractYesThe NFT collection contract address. Passing in an ENS, RNS, Lens Handle, or an Unstoppable Domain resolves automatically.
tokenIdYesThe specific token ID to check ownership for.

Implementation Reference

  • Implementation and registration of the 'nft_check_ownership_token_id' tool. The handler calls GoldRushClient's checkOwnershipInNftForSpecificTokenId method.
    server.tool(
        "nft_check_ownership_token_id",
        "Commonly used to verify ownership of a specific token (ERC-721 or ERC-1155) within a collection.\n" +
            "Required: chainName (blockchain network), walletAddress (wallet address), collectionContract (NFT collection), tokenId (specific token ID).\n" +
            "Returns ownership status for the specific token ID.",
        {
            chainName: z
                .enum(Object.values(ChainName) as [string, ...string[]])
                .describe(
                    "The blockchain network to query (e.g., 'eth-mainnet', 'matic-mainnet', 'bsc-mainnet')."
                ),
            walletAddress: z
                .string()
                .describe(
                    "The wallet address to check NFT ownership for. Passing in an ENS, RNS, Lens Handle, or an Unstoppable Domain resolves automatically."
                ),
            collectionContract: z
                .string()
                .describe(
                    "The NFT collection contract address. Passing in an ENS, RNS, Lens Handle, or an Unstoppable Domain resolves automatically."
                ),
            tokenId: z
                .string()
                .describe(
                    "The specific token ID to check ownership for."
                ),
        },
        async (params) => {
            try {
                const response =
                    await goldRushClient.NftService.checkOwnershipInNftForSpecificTokenId(
                        params.chainName as Chain,
                        params.walletAddress,
                        params.collectionContract,
                        params.tokenId
                    );
                return {
                    content: [
                        {
                            type: "text",
                            text: stringifyWithBigInt(response.data),
                        },
                    ],
                };
            } catch (err) {
                return {
                    content: [{ type: "text", text: `Error: ${err}` }],
                    isError: true,
                };
            }
        }
    );
Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses support for ERC-721/ERC-1155 standards and mentions returning 'ownership status,' but lacks details on return format structure, error handling for invalid token IDs, or rate limiting constraints.

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 three-sentence structure is logically ordered: purpose statement, required parameters, and return value. While listing required parameters is somewhat redundant given complete schema coverage, it serves as a useful quick-reference without excessive verbosity.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the 100% schema coverage and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and inputs. It mentions the return intent (ownership status), though specifying the exact return format (boolean vs object) would improve completeness for a verification tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already comprehensively documents all parameters including the chainName enum values and resolution behavior for ENS addresses. The description lists the parameters but adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 tool verifies ownership of a specific token (ERC-721 or ERC-1155), using specific verbs and identifying the exact resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'nft_check_ownership' by emphasizing 'specific token' and 'tokenId' scope.

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?

The description lists required parameters which implies usage context (when you have a specific token ID), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus the sibling 'nft_check_ownership' tool for general collection ownership checks. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/covalenthq/goldrush-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server