code402-verify-mcp

chain_tx_receipt

Paid ($0.02). Get the receipt of a confirmed transaction. Returns status (success/fail), gas used, logs, contract address if deployment.

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": {
      "hash": "<hash>"
    },
    "name": "chain_tx_receipt"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hash`	Yes	0x-prefixed 64-hex transaction hash

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the $0.02 cost and the return payload (status, gas used, logs, contract address). It still omits the safety profile an agent needs: nothing states it is a read-only operation, whether payment is charged on failure or not-found hashes, or what error behavior to expect. Useful context, but incomplete for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the cost front-loaded before the purpose and the return fields listed last. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it covers the payment cost. What remains missing is failure/edge behavior (unconfirmed or nonexistent hash, whether the fee is still charged), which matters for a paid single-hash lookup.

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 'hash' parameter is already documented as a 0x-prefixed 64-hex transaction hash, so the description adds no format or constraint detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the parameter work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the receipt of a confirmed transaction') and immediately enumerates the returned fields, which distinguishes it from a generic transaction lookup like chain_tx. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, but the resource ('receipt', not 'transaction') is precise enough for an agent to pick correctly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The qualifier 'confirmed' implicitly scopes usage to mined/executed transactions and warns the agent away from pending ones, which is genuine guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus chain_tx, nor what happens if the hash is unknown or unconfirmed, leaving the routing decision partly to inference.

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

All code402-verify-mcp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?