Skip to main content
Glama

MCPFax On-Chain Toolkit

by com.mcpscores

Did this transaction succeed?

tx_status

Status of a transaction by hash: success, failed or still pending, with the block it landed in, sender and recipient, value moved, gas used, the fee actually paid, and how many logs it emitted. Use to confirm an action you took really settled rather than assuming it did. An unknown hash is reported as not_found and is NOT charged. Costs $0.005 USDC per call via x402 on Base.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hashYes0x-prefixed 32-byte transaction hash.
chainNoethereum, base, arbitrum, optimism or polygon. Defaults to base.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently covers the not_found behavior for unknown hashes, states that such lookups are not charged, and discloses the per-call cost. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but the key operational behaviors are disclosed.

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 concise and front-loaded: it opens with the primary outcome (status by hash), then lists the returned details, then gives usage intent, then cost and error behavior. Every sentence carries information without unnecessary filler.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description sufficiently enumerates the fields returned: status, block, sender, recipient, value, gas, fee, and log count. It also covers the not_found case and pricing. Some response envelope details are absent, but the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, with hash and chain parameters already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 reports transaction status by hash, enumerating the possible results (success, failed, pending) and the specific data returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like address_info and token_info, which address different resources.

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 explicitly says to use this tool to confirm an action actually settled rather than assuming it did, providing clear usage context. It doesn't describe when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the sibling tools do not appear to overlap with transaction status lookup.

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

All MCPFax On-Chain Toolkit 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly different resource or moment: address state, token contract metadata, gas price, transaction status, and the two sides of the data-request marketplace. demand_report and request_data are related but cleanly split between aggregate supply/demand and a specific inquiry. No pair is likely to cause an agent to pick the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and mostly follow a descriptive noun-noun pattern like address_info, token_info, and tx_status. request_data is the one imperative-style outlier, and gas_now deviates from the noun-info pattern, but neither is confusing. The naming is broadly predictable with only minor deviations.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is a well-scoped set for a focused on-chain data and utility MCP. Each tool has a distinct job and there is no redundancy or padding. The set feels neither too thin nor too heavy.

Completeness4/5

The paid tools cover the main pre-transaction checks (address, token, gas) and post-transaction confirmation, while the free tools form a closed loop for discovering and requesting additional data. Minor optional additions like chain metadata or transaction history are workable gaps and do not create dead ends. The surface is complete for its apparent read-heavy purpose.

Resources