Somnia MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

getERC1155Transfers

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves ERC1155 token transfer records for a specified wallet on Somnia, enabling tracking of NFT and semi-fungible token activity.

Instructions

Get ERC1155 transfers for a specific wallet 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": {
      "chainName": "<chainName>",
      "walletAddress": "<walletAddress>",
      "authToken": "<authToken>"
    },
    "name": "getERC1155Transfers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`authToken`	Yes	Authorization token for accessing the Somnia API
`chainName`	Yes
`walletAddress`	Yes	Wallet address to fetch ERC1155 transfers for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as return format, pagination, rate limits, or chain restrictions, and merely restates the function without going beyond the structured metadata.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema, and the description does not specify what the response contains. While the purpose is clear and annotations cover safety, the absence of return-value details and explicit chain support makes the description only minimally complete 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?

The schema description coverage is 67%, with walletAddress and authToken described and chainName constrained via a const value 'somnia'. The description itself does not elaborate on parameter meaning, so it adds no value beyond the schema's own documentation.

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 identifies the action (Get), the resource (ERC1155 transfers), and the scope (for a specific wallet address). This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like getERC20Transfers and getERC721Transfers, which fetch transfers for different token standards.

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?

The description implies the tool is used to fetch ERC1155 transfers for a wallet, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No alternative tools are referenced, so the guidance is limited to the obvious use case.

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