evm_receiptReceipt of a transaction: whether it succeeded or reverted, gas used, fee actually paid, and how many logs it emitted. The call that answers did my transaction work. Flat $0.001 per call, paid over x402 (USDC).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | 32-byte transaction hash. | |
| chain | No | base | ethereum | polygon | arbitrum | optimism. |
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?
The description discloses the output behavior (success/revert, gas used, fee, logs) and mentions the cost. It is implied to be a read-only operation, which is typical for a receipt lookup. Without annotations, the description carries the burden, and it covers the essential behavioral aspects.
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 exceptionally concise, using two sentences to convey the purpose, key output fields, and a use case, followed by pricing. There is no redundancy or unnecessary information.
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?
The description adequately explains the tool's output (success, gas, fee, logs) and its purpose. Since there is no output schema, the description provides enough information for an agent to understand what will be returned and how to use the tool.
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?
The schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (hash and chain). The tool description adds no further clarification beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 tool's function: retrieving a transaction receipt and summarizing success, gas used, fee paid, and logs. It also explicitly identifies the primary use case ('The call that answers did my transaction work.'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like evm_tx.
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?
It provides a direct usage scenario ('The call that answers did my transaction work.'), which tells the agent when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternative tools or explain when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.