Look up a transaction by hash on Avalanche (C-Chain, P-Chain, or X-Chain). Supports 0x format (C-Chain) and CB58 format (P/X-Chain).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| txHash | Yes | Transaction hash (0x... for C-Chain, CB58 for P/X-Chain) | |
| network | No | Network to search | mainnet |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the supported chains and hash formats, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention return format, error behavior, or explicitly confirm this is a read-only operation. The description adds some context beyond the schema but lacks depth for a fully transparent view.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every phrase earns its place, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
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 simple lookup tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what is looked up and on which chains. It could be improved by mentioning the return value or potential errors, but it is otherwise complete for the tool's apparent simplicity.
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%, so the schema already documents both txHash and network. The description repeats the 0x/CB58 format detail already present in the schema, adding no new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Look up a transaction by hash on Avalanche (C-Chain, P-Chain, or X-Chain).' It uses a specific verb ('look up'), a specific resource ('transaction by hash'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like blockchain_lookup_address and blockchain_lookup_chain by focusing on transactions and hash formats.
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 description implies usage when you have a transaction hash and need to look it up on Avalanche networks. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like platform_get_tx or when not to use it. The guidance is mostly implied from the name and the supported chain/format details.
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.
Many tools are redundant due to compatibility aliases (avalanche_docs_* vs docs_*, blockchain_get_* vs onchain_lookup) and overlapping functionality (chain_stats vs onchain_query, onchain_activity vs onchain_query ops, acp_list vs info_acps). Agents may struggle to select the correct tool when multiple appear to serve the same purpose, despite descriptions clarifying aliases.
Naming patterns are inconsistent: some tools use noun_verb (acp_list, docs_fetch), some use verb_noun (build_plan), and others use prefixes like platform_get_, info_get_, and onchain_. The mix of styles (snake_case, noun phrases, verb phrases) makes it hard to predict tool names.
With 48 tools, the count is high and inflated by compatibility aliases and granular platform_get_* wrappers. The scope spans multiple domains (docs, on-chain, platform API, ACPs, console), which could be better modularized. Many tools are trivial variants (e.g., platform_get_block vs platform_get_block_by_height) adding unnecessary bulk.
The server provides thorough read-only coverage for Avalanche: docs search, ACP management, on-chain lookups, indexed stats, platform API getters, and console flow guidance. While there is no transaction submission (likely intentional), the surface covers most queries a developer would need, with minor gaps like detailed token transfer history.
