StatePulse API

relayTransaction

Relays a transaction to Base Mainnet, paying the native gas on your behalf and charging your wallet equivalent USDC via EIP-3009 receiveWithAuthorization. Matches: gasless tx relayer, submit transaction base, pay gas in usdc.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`nonce`	Yes	32-byte hex nonce for the EIP-3009 transfer
`sender`	Yes	EVM address of the sender paying USDC
`calldata`	Yes	The hex payload calldata of the call
`signature`	Yes	Hex signature authorizing the USDC receiveWithAuthorization transfer
`valid_before`	Yes	Unix timestamp after which signature is invalid
`target_contract`	Yes	The destination contract address to call
`max_gas_fee_usdc`	Yes	Maximum USDC authorized for gas payment (e.g. 0.50)

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the core mechanism (EIP-3009 receiveWithAuthorization) and that gas is paid on behalf, but it does not disclose behaviors such as failure handling, refunds, or what happens if max gas is exceeded.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a keyword list. The first sentence immediately states the action and key details. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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?

Given 7 required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the 'what' and 'how' of the tool, but it omits what the tool returns (e.g., transaction hash) and does not discuss edge cases or failure modes.

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%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description does not add extra meaning or context beyond the parameter names and basic descriptions found in the schema.

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 that it relays a transaction to Base Mainnet, pays native gas, and charges USDC via EIP-3009. It differentiates from all sibling tools, none of which are gas relayers.

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 provides matching keywords ('gasless tx relayer', 'submit transaction base', 'pay gas in usdc') that hint at use cases, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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

All StatePulse API 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

B3/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping functionality, e.g., auditNetworkHost combines DNS, SSL, and header checks that have dedicated tools (auditDnsSecurity, checkSslExpiry, auditSecurityHeaders). Multiple weather and blockchain tools also overlap in scope, making it difficult for an agent to choose the right tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., getAirQuality, checkDnsPropagation), but a few deviate (agentPreflight, capabilitiesDiff) and some use compound names (depositCoordinationBounty). Overall, the pattern is clear but not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count1/5

With 56 tools, the server is far too large for a coherent MCP surface. The number suggests a collection of many unrelated APIs rather than a focused tool set. A typical well-scoped server has 3-15 tools.

Completeness2/5

While the tool set covers many domains, each domain has shallow coverage. For example, blockchain tools miss basic transaction sending and contract deployment; weather tools lack forecasts. The 'requestMissingData' endpoint acknowledges gaps, but the current surface is severely incomplete for a general-purpose API.

Resources

Need Help?