Get full transaction details by signature, including instructions, logs, and status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signature | Yes | Transaction signature (base58) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meta | No | fee, pre/post balances, logs, err | |
| slot | No | ||
| blockTime | No | unix seconds | |
| transaction | No | message + signatures |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It conveys that the tool is read-only and returns full details, but does not mention potential failure modes, costs, or response size.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. No extraneous information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema and one clearly described parameter, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral details that would help an agent choose this tool over similar ones.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description repeats 'by signature' without adding meaning beyond the schema's 'base58' note. The description does not elaborate on the parameter's format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'full transaction details' with a specific input 'signature'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like solana_getAccountInfo and solana_getBalance by emphasizing instructions, logs, and status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as solana_getAccountInfo or simpler queries. The usage is implied but not clarified with conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tool pairs overlap in function: aex402_quote vs aex402_buildSwap, search vs search_tokens vs discover_programs, describe_program vs reconstruct_abi, and mcp_linq vs agent_delegate. Descriptions attempt to differentiate, but boundaries are fuzzy and an agent could easily select the wrong one when uncertain.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use camelCase (aex402_buildSwap) while most use snake_case, verbs vary widely (build, get, list, quote, search, describe, discover, launch, delegate, chat), and there is no uniform verb_noun pattern. This makes predicting tool names difficult.
32 tools is excessive for a single MCP server, exceeding the 25+ threshold. While the scope is broad (AMM, bridge, AI, RPC, discovery, launchpad), many tools could be consolidated (e.g., search tools) or are too fine-grained (multiple solana_get* tools).
Core workflows are well covered: AMM (quote/build/get/list), bridge (quote/status), AI (chat/delegate/linq), Solana and EVM RPCs, search/discovery plus health check, launchpad, and payment help. Minor gaps include no direct bridge history or AMM execution, but these are intentional in a non-custodial design.
