Skip to main content
Glama

helius_get_signatures_for_asset

Retrieve transaction signatures for a specific asset on the Solana blockchain to track its activity and history.

Instructions

Get signatures associated with an asset

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
pageNo
limitNo

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the tool logic: calls Helius RPC getSignaturesForAsset with id, page, limit, and formats the response.
    export const getSignaturesForAssetHandler = async (input: GetSignaturesForAssetInput): Promise<ToolResultSchema> => {
      try {
        // Fix the parameter type mismatch
        const params = {
          id: input.id,
          page: input.page || 1, // Default to page 1 if not provided
          limit: input.limit || 10 // Default to 10 if not provided
        };
        const signatures = await (helius as any as Helius).rpc.getSignaturesForAsset(params);
        return createSuccessResponse(`Signatures for asset: ${JSON.stringify(signatures, null, 2)}`);
      } catch (error) {
        return createErrorResponse(`Error getting signatures for asset: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}`);
      }
    }
  • The input schema definition for the tool, defining parameters id (required string), page (number), limit (number).
    {
      name: 'helius_get_signatures_for_asset',
      description: 'Get signatures associated with an asset',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          id: { type: 'string' },
          page: { type: 'number' },
          limit: { type: 'number' }
        },
        required: ['id']
      }
    },
  • src/tools.ts:581-581 (registration)
    Registration of the tool name to its handler function in the handlers dictionary.
    "helius_get_signatures_for_asset": helius.getSignaturesForAssetHandler,
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'), implying it's non-destructive, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'limit' params), error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, output expectations, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for effective agent use without additional 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'asset' but doesn't clarify the 'id' parameter (e.g., asset ID format), 'page' (e.g., pagination index), or 'limit' (e.g., results per page). The description adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get signatures associated with an asset' clearly states the action (get) and resource (signatures for an asset), but it's vague about what 'signatures' means in this context (e.g., transaction signatures, ownership signatures). It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'helius_get_signatures_for_address', leaving ambiguity about when to use each.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain how this differs from 'helius_get_signatures_for_address' or other asset-related tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical use cases.

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