Somnia MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

getERC721Transfers

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve ERC721 NFT transfer history for any wallet address on the Somnia blockchain, providing a clear record of NFT inflows and outflows.

Instructions

Get ERC721 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": "getERC721Transfers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`authToken`	Yes	Authorization token for accessing the Somnia API
`chainName`	Yes
`walletAddress`	Yes	Wallet address to fetch ERC721 transfers for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral details (e.g., response format, pagination) beyond stating the resource, so it meets the baseline without enhancing transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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?

For a simple read tool with strong annotations, the description is adequate but does not explain return values (since no output schema exists). It lacks details about what data is returned (e.g., transfer events, token IDs, timestamps), which would be helpful given the tool complexity.

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 67% (authToken and walletAddress are described). The description adds meaning to walletAddress by specifying 'a specific wallet address,' but does not clarify authToken or chainName beyond schema/const. Since coverage is not high, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Get ERC721 transfers for a specific wallet address.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like getERC20Transfers and getERC1155Transfers by specifying the ERC721 standard and wallet-address scope.

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 usage for fetching ERC721 transfers for a given wallet, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions. It relies on the tool name and resource type to convey context.

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