Skip to main content
Glama
covalenthq

GoldRush MCP Server

by covalenthq

transaction_summary

Fetch transaction summary for a wallet including earliest/latest transactions and count across multiple blockchain networks.

Instructions

Commonly used to fetch the earliest and latest transactions, and the transaction count for a wallet. Required: chainName (blockchain network), walletAddress (wallet address). Optional: quoteCurrency, withGas (include gas usage statistics). Returns summary of transaction activity for the specified wallet.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNameYesThe blockchain network to query (e.g., 'eth-mainnet', 'matic-mainnet', 'bsc-mainnet').
walletAddressYesThe wallet address to get transaction summary for. Passing in an ENS, RNS, Lens Handle, or an Unstoppable Domain resolves automatically.
quoteCurrencyNoCurrency to quote transaction values in (e.g., 'USD', 'EUR'). If not specified, uses default quote currency.
withGasNoInclude gas usage statistics in the summary. Default is false.

Implementation Reference

  • The "transaction_summary" tool is defined and implemented here using the `server.tool` method. It handles input validation via Zod and calls the GoldRush client's `getTransactionSummary` method.
    server.tool(
        "transaction_summary",
        "Commonly used to fetch the earliest and latest transactions, and the transaction count for a wallet.\n" +
            "Required: chainName (blockchain network), walletAddress (wallet address).\n" +
            "Optional: quoteCurrency, withGas (include gas usage statistics).\n" +
            "Returns summary of transaction activity for the specified wallet.",
        {
            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 get transaction summary for. Passing in an ENS, RNS, Lens Handle, or an Unstoppable Domain resolves automatically."
                ),
            quoteCurrency: z
                .enum(Object.values(validQuoteValues) as [string, ...string[]])
                .optional()
                .describe(
                    "Currency to quote transaction values in (e.g., 'USD', 'EUR'). If not specified, uses default quote currency."
                ),
            withGas: z
                .boolean()
                .optional()
                .describe(
                    "Include gas usage statistics in the summary. Default is false."
                ),
        },
        async (params) => {
            try {
                const response =
                    await goldRushClient.TransactionService.getTransactionSummary(
                        params.chainName as Chain,
                        params.walletAddress,
                        {
                            quoteCurrency: params.quoteCurrency as Quote,
                            withGas: params.withGas,
                        }
                    );
                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?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adequately describes the return value (summary with earliest/latest/count and optional gas stats) but omits operational characteristics such as data freshness, rate limiting, authentication requirements, or error conditions (e.g., invalid wallet addresses).

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 four-sentence structure is logical (purpose → required → optional → return) and front-loaded. Minor inefficiency exists with redundant framing ('Commonly used to' and 'Returns summary' both describe output) and repeating parameter documentation readily available in the schema, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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 lack of output schema, the description partially compensates by listing specific returned fields (earliest, latest, count). However, it fails to sketch the complete response structure—such as whether financial totals are included (implied by quoteCurrency but not stated) or the exact shape of gas statistics—leaving gaps in the agent's understanding of what the tool produces.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage including important details like ENS resolution support. The description repeats parameter names and basic types but fails to highlight critical semantics present in the schema, such as the automatic resolution of ENS/RNS/Lens handles for walletAddress. With complete schema coverage, this meets the baseline of 3 but adds minimal value.

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 clearly states the tool fetches 'earliest and latest transactions, and the transaction count'—specific verbs and scope distinguishing it from sibling tools like `transactions_for_address` (full list) or `transaction` (single). However, the phrase 'Commonly used to' hedges unnecessarily, weakening the definitive clarity expected of a 5.

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?

While the description labels required versus optional parameters, it provides no guidance on when to select this tool over siblings like `transactions_for_address` or `historical_portfolio_value`. There is no mention of when aggregation is preferred over detailed transaction lists.

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