MCP Etherscan Server

get-token-transfers

Retrieve ERC20 token transfers for an Ethereum address. Set limit (max 100) and choose network.

Instructions

Get ERC20 token transfers for an Ethereum address

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": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "get-token-transfers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Number of transfers to return (max 100)
`address`	Yes	Ethereum address (0x format)
`network`	No	Network name or chain ID (default: ethereum mainnet)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.2Mar 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description lacks any behavioral details beyond the basic function. No annotations are provided, so the description should cover aspects like read-only nature, rate limits, or authentication requirements, but it does not.

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, clear sentence that gets straight to the point. It is appropriately concise, though it could be slightly expanded to include key caveats like pagination limits.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should describe the return format (e.g., list of transfers with fields like token, amount, block). It does not, leaving the agent without knowledge of what data is returned.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional context or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves ERC20 token transfers for a given Ethereum address. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get-transactions' (native transactions) and 'get-token-info' (token metadata). However, it does not specify direction (incoming/outgoing) or pagination behavior, leaving some ambiguity.

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 like 'get-token-portfolio' or 'get-token-info'. There is no mention of prerequisites, common use cases, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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