Receipt of a Base transaction: success or reverted, gas used, effective gas price, fee paid in ETH, number of event logs and any contract created. Use to confirm a payment or call went through. Costs $0.001 in USDC on Base per successful call, paid with x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | 0x transaction hash |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover only the safety/open-world profile, and the description adds materially more: an explicit price ($0.001 USDC on Base), the payment rail (x402), and the important nuance that billing occurs 'per successful call'. That last detail is genuinely useful behavior an agent cannot get from structured fields. It stops short of describing failure behavior for a pending or unknown hash.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its returned fields, then usage, then cost. The field enumeration is dense but every item is informative; no filler sentences.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing what comes back, and it discloses the payment model. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (unknown/pending hash, reverted-vs-not-found handling) for a paid lookup that charges only on success.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'hash' parameter is documented as '0x transaction hash' in the schema itself, so the description adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema fully carries parameter semantics.
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?
Names a specific verb+resource ('Receipt of a Base transaction') and enumerates the exact fields returned (status, gas used, effective gas price, fee in ETH, log count, contract created). It implies scope versus the network siblings (base-tx, base_block) via 'Use to confirm a payment or call went through', but never explicitly contrasts itself with base-tx, which likely returns raw transaction 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?
'Use to confirm a payment or call went through' states a use context, but there is no when-not guidance and no named alternative. An agent choosing between base_receipt, base-tx, base_tx and base_logs gets only a weak hint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.