Transaction status on any supported chain: confirmed/failed/pending/unknown, confirmations + gas (EVM) or slot + commitment (Solana). One call, any chain slug, e.g. eth_mainnet, base_mainnet, solana_mainnet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | Transaction hash (0x… for EVM, base58 signature for Solana) | |
| chain | Yes | Chain slug, e.g. 'eth_mainnet' |
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It fully describes the read operation and its outputs, with no mention of side effects, which is appropriate for a status check.
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?
Two concise sentences convey all necessary information 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?
Covers the core functionality and output details; though output schema is absent, the description gives enough context for expected results. It doesn't address error cases, but that's not critical for a simple query.
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 already documents both parameters; description adds clarity by providing examples of chain slugs and explaining how output varies by chain type.
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 the tool retrieves transaction status, enumerates possible statuses, and specifies additional details returned (confirmations/gas for EVM, slot/commitment for Solana), with concrete chain slug examples.
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?
Description explains what the tool does but doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or any prerequisites. It's self-explanatory for a simple query, but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.