Skip to main content
Glama

get_axie_transfer_history

Retrieve on-chain transfer and sale history for a specific Axie to track ownership changes and transaction records.

Instructions

Get the on-chain transfer and sale history for a specific Axie.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
axieIdYesThe numeric ID of the Axie.
fromNoPagination offset. Default 0.
sizeNoNumber of records to return. Default 10.

Implementation Reference

  • The handler implementation for get_axie_transfer_history in the switch statement.
    case "get_axie_transfer_history": {
      const schema = z.object({
        axieId: AxieId,
        from: z.coerce.number().int().min(0).default(0),
        size: z.coerce.number().int().min(1).max(100).default(10),
      });
      const parsed = schema.parse(args);
      const data = await client.query<{ axie: unknown }>(
        queries.GET_AXIE_TRANSFER_HISTORY,
        { axieId: parsed.axieId, from: parsed.from, size: parsed.size }
      );
      return jsonContent(data.axie);
    }
  • src/index.ts:263-283 (registration)
    Registration of the get_axie_transfer_history tool.
    {
      name: "get_axie_transfer_history",
      description:
        "Get the on-chain transfer and sale history for a specific Axie.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          axieId: {
            type: "string",
            description: "The numeric ID of the Axie.",
          },
          from: {
            type: "number",
            description: "Pagination offset. Default 0.",
          },
          size: {
            type: "number",
            description: "Number of records to return. Default 10.",
          },
        },
        required: ["axieId"],
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'on-chain' history, implying blockchain data, but doesn't specify rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, pagination details beyond schema). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does ('Get...history') and for what ('specific Axie'), making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a read-only tool. It specifies the resource and scope ('on-chain transfer and sale history'), but lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavioral constraints. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured safety hints, it should do more to be fully complete.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (axieId, from, size) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'axieId' is for a 'specific Axie,' which is redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.

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's purpose: 'Get the on-chain transfer and sale history for a specific Axie.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('transfer and sale history'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_axie' (general info) or 'get_user_activities' (user-focused). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get_top_sales' might overlap in concept), keeping it from a perfect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_user_activities' (which might include transfers) or 'get_top_sales' (which might involve sale data). Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the name and description 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/jackdlogan/axie-mcp'

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