Skip to main content
Glama

helius_get_asset_batch

Retrieve detailed information for multiple Solana blockchain assets simultaneously by providing their IDs, enabling efficient batch queries of token and NFT data.

Instructions

Get details of multiple assets by their IDs

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsYes

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for 'helius_get_asset_batch' that calls the Helius RPC method getAssetBatch with the provided array of asset IDs and returns the results or error.
    export const getAssetBatchHandler = async (input: { ids: string[] }): Promise<ToolResultSchema> => {
      try {
        const assets = await (helius as any as Helius).rpc.getAssetBatch({ ids: input.ids });
        return createSuccessResponse(`Asset batch details: ${JSON.stringify(assets, null, 2)}`);
      } catch (error) {
        return createErrorResponse(`Error getting asset batch: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}`);
      }
    }
  • The input schema definition for the tool, specifying an object with a required 'ids' array of strings.
    {
      name: 'helius_get_asset_batch',
      description: 'Get details of multiple assets by their IDs',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          ids: { type: 'array', items: { type: 'string' } }
        },
        required: ['ids']
      }
    },
  • src/tools.ts:574-574 (registration)
    Registration of the tool name to its handler function in the handlers dictionary.
    "helius_get_asset_batch": helius.getAssetBatchHandler,
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get details'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Get details of multiple assets'). There is no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, performance), parameter usage, and expected outputs, which are critical for an agent to use it effectively. The conciseness comes at the expense of necessary context.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, documenting only that 'ids' is a required array of strings. The description adds minimal semantics by specifying 'multiple assets by their IDs', which clarifies the purpose of the 'ids' parameter but doesn't explain format constraints (e.g., ID types, array size limits) or provide examples. Given the low schema coverage, this insufficiently compensates.

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 verb ('Get details') and resource ('multiple assets by their IDs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from the singular 'helius_get_asset' tool by specifying 'multiple assets' and 'batch' in the name, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other asset-related siblings like 'helius_get_assets_by_owner'.

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 like 'helius_get_asset' (for single assets) or other asset query tools (e.g., 'helius_get_assets_by_owner'). It lacks context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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/dcSpark/mcp-server-helius'

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