Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

mcp

by io.github.CryptoAPIs-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

transactions_data__transactions_data_solana

Transactions Data Solana: get transaction details by transaction hash (signature). Networks: mainnet, devnet.

Credits per call: 90

Credits are indicative only and may change at any time. The actual credits spent for each API request are returned in the response headers.

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": {
      "network": "<network>",
      "transactionHash": "<transactionHash>"
    },
    "name": "transactions_data__transactions_data_solana"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextNoOptional context for the request - echoed back in response
networkYesNetwork name
transactionHashYesTransaction hash (signature)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose a real behavioral trait: the 90-credit cost per call and that actual credits appear in response headers. However, it omits auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior, and return format, which a lookup tool with no annotations should ideally cover.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by networks and credit cost. The boilerplate credits disclaimer is slightly redundant with the preceding line but is short and not disruptive.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, networks, and cost, but it does not hint at what the response contains or any failure modes. Adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the result shape.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (context, network, transactionHash) are already documented in the schema with the same meaning the description restates. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 transaction details') plus the identifier ('by transaction hash (signature)'). The 'Solana' qualifier and network list distinguish it from the EVM/Kaspa/UTXO/XRP siblings, though the differentiation comes mostly from the name rather than explicit description text.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of alternatives (e.g. address_history or address_latest). The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone. Only implied usage is present.

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

All mcp toolsInspect
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