evm_txFull transaction details by hash, merged with its receipt: from, to, value, gas used, status and block. One call instead of two. Flat $0.001 per call, paid over x402 (USDC).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the cost per call and payment method (USDC via x402), which is important behavioral information. It also implicitly indicates read-only behavior by describing what is returned. It does not mention potential side effects or error conditions, but the pricing and return scope provide reasonable transparency.
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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by an inline list of included fields, then a brief note on combining calls and cost. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
For a straightforward read-only transaction lookup, the description covers purpose, included data, and pricing. It does not detail output formatting or edge cases, but these are not essential for the tool to be used correctly in most scenarios.
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 descriptions for both parameters (hash and chain) are clear, with the chain parameter listing valid options. The tool description adds no further explanation of these parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so this scores at the baseline.
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?
Clearly states it fetches full transaction details by hash and merges with receipt, listing specific fields (from, to, value, gas used, status, block). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like evm_receipt by explicitly combining both pieces of data.
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?
Provides practical guidance by saying 'One call instead of two', implying this tool should be used when both transaction and receipt data are needed, rather than calling separate tools. It also mentions flat pricing and payment method, giving cost-related usage context. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or address 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.