Neo N3 MCP Server

get_nep11_transfers

Retrieve NEP-11 token transfer history for a given Neo N3 address, with optional network and time range filters.

Instructions

Get NEP-11 transfer history for an 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_nep11_transfers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`address`	Yes	Neo N3 address
`network`	No	Network to use: "mainnet" or "testnet"
`toTimestampMs`	No	Optional end timestamp in Unix epoch milliseconds
`fromTimestampMs`	No	Optional start timestamp in Unix epoch milliseconds

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.0.0May 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states a read operation ('Get'), but fails to mention pagination, rate limits, response size, or error conditions. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate side effects or constraints.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It wastes no words, though it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should elaborate on return format, pagination, and edge cases (e.g., empty history). It only states the basic function, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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%, so each parameter already has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning or context for parameters beyond 'transfer history'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as no additional 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 retrieves NEP-11 transfer history for an address. The verb 'Get' and resource 'NEP-11 transfer history' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool get_nep17_transfers, although the token standard is distinct in the name.

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_nep17_transfers or get_nep11_balances. The description lacks context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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