MCP Etherscan Server

get-transactions

Retrieve recent transactions for an Ethereum address across over 70 supported networks.

Instructions

Get recent transactions for an Ethereum address across 70+ supported networks

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-transactions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Number of transactions 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

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as whether pending transactions are included, rate limits, or authentication needs. It only mentions 'recent' and '70+ networks', lacking details on API key requirements, pagination, or result ordering.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence with minimal waste. It is front-loaded with the key action but lacks structured information. It could be improved by separating the purpose from supporting details like the number of networks.

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 complexity and the lack of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format (e.g., fields in each transaction), which is essential for agent understanding. The tool's context among many siblings adds to the need for more detail.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. For example, it does not clarify that 'limit' is optional or that 'network' defaults to Ethereum mainnet, which the schema already covers.

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 identifies the action ('Get recent transactions') and specifies the resource ('Ethereum address'). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like check-balance or get-token-transfers by focusing on general transactions. However, 'recent' is somewhat ambiguous without a specific time range.

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. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply states what the tool does without contextualizing its appropriate usage.

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