Skip to main content
Glama

FiatDock

by com.fiatdock

Transaction status on Base ($0.001)

tx_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

PAID ($0.001 USDC via x402). Confirmation status of a Base transaction — success/failed, block, confirmations, gas used, from/to. An unconfirmed/unknown tx returns 404 (and is NOT charged), so an agent can poll safely. Without payment this returns the 402 challenge; the fiatdock-mcp npm package pays automatically. On any RPC failure it returns 5xx and is NOT charged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
txHashYesA 64-hex transaction hash (0x…) on Base
paymentNoBase64 of a single x402 v2 PaymentPayload (EIP-3009 transferWithAuthorization on Base USDC). OMIT it on the first call: the 402 you get back carries `howToPay.payloadTemplate` — the exact envelope to fill in — plus the price and the EIP-712 domain. Send it on the second call to complete the purchase; it is forwarded as the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header, never as body data. Nothing is charged for the 402 itself, and a call that fails after payment settles nothing.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesRecipient address (null for a contract-creation tx)
asOfYesISO 8601 read time
fromYesSender address (null if the node omits it)
statusYessuccess | failed (a pending/unknown tx returns 404, not this shape)
txHashYesThe transaction hash queried
gasUsedYesGas used by the tx (string)
networkYesChain read (always base)
blockNumberYesBlock the tx was mined in
confirmationsYesConfirmations as of the read (>=1)

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints, but the description goes well beyond them: it exposes the per-call cost, the non-chargable 404 and 5xx paths, the 402 payment challenge, and the automatic payment behavior. This is excellent behavioral disclosure.

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 rich but efficient: each sentence adds new material (status result, 404 polling guidance, 402 challenge, automatic payment, 5xx behavior) without clutter. It is front-loaded with the most important facts and covers a lot in a few lines.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only status tool with an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: the exact inputs, the return value coverage, error semantics, payment gate, and charging/not-charging rules. The agent can invoke and interpret this tool correctly without needing additional external instructions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, and the schema already documents txHash and payment well. The description adds genuine value by clarifying that the payment is handled automatically by the 'fiatdock-mcp' package and that the txHash refers to a Base transaction, which helps an agent understand how to fulfill the required parameter in practice.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Confirmation status of a Base transaction', with the specific data returned (success/failed, block, confirmations, gas used, from/to). It is clear and resource-specific, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_order_status, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives useful context: an unconfirmed/unknown transaction returns a 404 and is not charged, so an agent can safely poll. It also clarifies the 402 challenge and automatic payment via the fiatdock-mcp package. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over a sibling like get_order_status.

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

All FiatDock toolsInspect
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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly separated by resource and action, but a few intentional bundles create mild selection overlap: token_report duplicates the data from token_price + token_safety, and address_intel overlaps eth_balance/usdc_balance plus safety. The descriptions explain the trade-offs well, so this is a minor rather than severe issue.

Naming Consistency4/5

Data-query tools follow a solid subject_metric pattern (token_price, usdc_balance, tx_status), while state-changing tools use verb_object (create_onramp_session, call_service). The pattern is readable and mostly consistent, but not a single uniform verb_noun convention throughout, so it falls just short of perfect.

Tool Count4/5

18 tools is above the typical 3-15 well-scoped range, but the server genuinely spans Base chain primitives, token intelligence, fiat ramps, and a marketplace. Each tool has a purpose, and the count is reasonable rather than bloated.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are covered end-to-end: quote -> create on/off-ramp session -> order status; token price/safety/metadata/report; marketplace search/get/call; chain/tx primitives. Minor gaps exist, such as no order cancellation, no list-all-services endpoint, and no supported-country/method endpoint despite those details living in descriptions.

Resources