Abstraxn

Get transaction status

network.transaction_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the status of a transaction. Supports both EVM (transaction hash) and Solana (signature). Free, read-only.

Use this to confirm a transfer landed, debug a failed transaction, or report status to a user. Both chain and transaction_hash are required. Available chains: solana, solana-devnet, ethereum, sepolia, polygon, amoy, bsc, bsc-testnet, base, base-sepolia, tempo, tempo-testnet, arbitrum-one, monad, skale-base-sepolia.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	Yes	Blockchain network. One of: solana, solana-devnet, ethereum, sepolia, polygon, amoy, bsc, bsc-testnet, base, base-sepolia, tempo, tempo-testnet, arbitrum-one, monad, skale-base-sepolia
`transaction_hash`	Yes	Transaction hash (EVM, 0x + 64 hex) or Solana signature (base58).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No
`from`	No
`chain`	No
`error`	No
`value`	No
`status`	No	e.g. "success", "failed", "not_found", "pending".
`gasUsed`	No
`message`	No
`gasPrice`	No
`timestamp`	No
`blockNumber`	No
`transaction_hash`	No
`blockNumberDecimal`	No

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

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. The description adds 'Free, read-only' (redundant) and mentions supported chains, but no new behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, or return behavior. It is consistent with annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded, but the chain list duplicates the schema enum, making it slightly redundant. Overall it is efficient and well-structured without being verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with complete schema, annotations, and output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and required inputs. It lacks explicit exclusions or error-handling notes, which are not necessary given the tool's simplicity and existing metadata.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions and an enum for chain. The description repeats the chain list and required-parameter info, adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Check the status of a transaction' with explicit support for both EVM and Solana. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like network.blocknumber or network.token_info, which serve different purposes.

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 explicit use cases: 'confirm a transfer landed, debug a failed transaction, or report status to a user,' and notes that both chain and transaction_hash are required. It does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.

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

All Abstraxn tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by domain (market, network, places, social, travel, web3) and each has a distinct purpose. However, within the 'network' group, tools like token_price, token_info, and market.crypto/price_feed could be confused for similar price lookups, but descriptions clarify their differences (free vs paid, DEX vs CoinGecko).

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming uses a dot-separated domain prefix (e.g., market.crypto, network.blocknumber, places.lookup) which is consistent in structure, but the action selection within each tool (e.g., search vs price_feed) is not reflected in the tool name itself. This hybrid approach is clear but not strictly uniform.

Tool Count4/5

With 11 tools covering a wide range of domains (crypto, network, places, social, travel, web3), the count is appropriate for a multi-purpose server. Each domain has a focused set of actions, so the tool count feels well-scoped without being excessive.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a broad but shallow surface across multiple domains. For example, crypto market data is well-covered, but places lacks a reverse geocode or photo tool. Travel has only flight and hotel search, missing car rentals or activities. The network domain is relatively complete for read operations, but lacks write support beyond prepare_transfer.

Resources

Need Help?