Skip to main content
Glama

t2000_history

View recent transactions including sends, saves, borrows, swaps, and investments to generate activity summaries and weekly recaps.

Instructions

View recent transactions (sends, saves, borrows, swaps, investments). Use for activity summaries and weekly recaps.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoNumber of transactions to return (default: 20)

Implementation Reference

  • The t2000_history tool is defined and implemented here, using `agent.history` to fetch the data.
    server.tool(
      't2000_history',
      'View recent transactions (sends, saves, borrows, swaps, investments). Use for activity summaries and weekly recaps.',
      { limit: z.number().optional().describe('Number of transactions to return (default: 20)') },
      async ({ limit }) => {
        try {
          const result = await agent.history({ limit });
          return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result) }] };
        } catch (err) {
          return errorResult(err);
        }
      },
    );
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'recent transactions' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like time range (e.g., last 30 days), pagination, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The phrase 'View' implies read-only, but this isn't explicitly stated, leaving gaps in transparency for a tool with potential data access constraints.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: two concise sentences that directly state the purpose and usage without wasted words. Each sentence adds value, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like data recency or format, which could be important for a transaction history tool. Without annotations or output schema, more context on return values or constraints would improve completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'limit' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying transaction types, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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: 'View recent transactions (sends, saves, borrows, swaps, investments)' specifies the verb ('View') and resource ('recent transactions'), with examples of transaction types. It distinguishes from siblings like t2000_balance or t2000_portfolio by focusing on transaction history rather than current state, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for usage: 'Use for activity summaries and weekly recaps' indicates when to apply this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or named alternatives among siblings, such as distinguishing from t2000_earnings or t2000_pending_rewards for specific transaction types.

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/mission69b/t2000'

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