Skip to main content
Glama

send_tx

Destructive

Sends a transaction built by buy_coin and signed by the wallet, unchanged, to the network and Jito at once; answers with the signature and whether it landed.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "tx": "<tx>"
    },
    "name": "send_tx"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
txYesthe signed transaction, base64

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely new context: the payload is forwarded unchanged (no re-signing or mutation), it is dual-submitted to the network and Jito concurrently, and the response reports signature plus landing status. It stops short of covering failure handling or retry semantics for a non-idempotent send, which would matter here.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. Every clause carries information: source of the transaction, signing requirement, dual submission, and return content.

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?

With only one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient — it even describes return values. The remaining gap is failure behavior for a destructive, non-idempotent send, which an agent would want to know before invoking.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'the signed transaction, base64'. The description reinforces the signing requirement and the 'unchanged' constraint but adds no encoding or formatting detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (sends) and resource (a signed transaction), plus precise scope: unchanged, to the network and Jito simultaneously. It also names buy_coin as the upstream builder, so an agent can distinguish this submitter from the sibling that constructs the transaction.

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 phrase 'built by buy_coin and signed by the wallet' establishes the prerequisite workflow and implies this is the terminal step after construction and signing. It does not state exclusions or failure-path alternatives, but no sibling performs submission, so there is little ambiguity.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.