get_transaction_receipt_statusGet the receipt status of a transaction (1 = success, 0 = failed). Post-Byzantium only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| txhash | Yes | Transaction hash. | |
| chainid | No | Numeric chain id (e.g. 1=Ethereum, 56=BNB, 137=Polygon). Defaults to server config. |
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?
Annotations already cover safety traits (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's added value is the 1/0 result coding and the Post-Byzantium limitation. It does not describe behavior for pre-Byzantium transactions or not-found cases, but there is no contradiction with the annotations.
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?
One concise sentence communicates the operation, output mapping, and a key constraint with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded.
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 low-complexity tool with full schema coverage, the description is mostly sufficient, and the 1/0 mapping compensates for the missing output schema. The main gap is the lack of sibling disambiguation and undefined edge-case behavior for pre-Byzantium blocks, which leaves some room for agent misrouting.
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%: both txhash and chainid are documented with formats and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description uses a specific verb and resource ('get receipt status'), and explicitly defines the output meaning (1 = success, 0 = failed), so the core behavior is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_transaction_receipt or get_transaction_status, which an agent could confuse with this one.
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?
The 'Post-Byzantium only' constraint gives a clear precondition for use. However, no alternative tool is mentioned, so the description leaves it to the agent to infer when to prefer get_transaction_receipt or get_transaction_status instead.
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.
Most tools target clearly distinct data types: balances, transactions, logs, contracts, tokens, gas, and chains. The main confusion risk is between get_transaction_status, get_transaction_receipt_status, and get_transaction_receipt, which all relate to transaction outcomes and could be easily misselected.
Every tool follows the get_<object> or get_<object>_<qualifier> snake_case pattern. The naming is highly predictable and makes the tool purpose evident from the name alone.
20 tools is on the heavier side, approaching the upper bound for a coherent MCP server. However, given Etherscan's broad read-only domain—addresses, transactions, contracts, tokens, logs, and gas—the count is defensible even if it feels somewhat large.
The toolset covers the major Etherscan data-access patterns: balances, normal/internal transactions, receipts, token transfers, contract ABI/source/creation, logs, and gas. Obvious gaps like fetching a block by number/hash or listing transactions within a block are missing, but agents can accomplish most explorer workflows.