Neo N3 MCP Server

get_nep17_transfers

Retrieve NEP-17 token transfer history for any Neo N3 address. Filter by network (mainnet/testnet) and time range to get specific transactions.

Instructions

Get NEP-17 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_nep17_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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, data freshness, or authentication requirements. It merely restates the purpose.

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. While it lacks detail, it is efficient and front-loaded with the key purpose.

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?

The tool has no output schema, yet the description does not hint at the return format or structure of transfer history. For a query tool, this incomplete context hampers effective use.

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% description coverage, so each parameter is documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves NEP-17 transfer history for an address, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_nep11_transfers (different token standard) and get_balance (just balance).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_nep11_transfers. The context is implied from the name and schema, but no direct comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.

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