Transaction lookup on Base by hash: decoded from, to, value, nonce, gas and max fee, and whether it is mined or pending. Use it to inspect any transaction. Price: 0.002 USDC per call over x402 on Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | Example: 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the chain (Base), the returned field set, and the paid access model (0.002 USDC per call over x402), but says nothing about behavior for a missing/unknown hash, unmined transactions beyond a flag, or retry/error semantics.
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?
Three tightly packed clauses: purpose plus payload, usage, then cost. It is front-loaded correctly, though "Use it to inspect any transaction" borders on redundant with the opening clause.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the mined/pending distinction, and it flags the per-call cost. The main remaining hole is not-found/error behavior, which an agent calling with arbitrary hashes would benefit from knowing.
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?
There is a single required parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already establishes the hash input, and the description adds only that it is a Base transaction hash. The schema's 'description' is merely a zero-hash example rather than a format explanation, and the description does not fill that gap (e.g., 32-byte hex).
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Transaction lookup on Base by hash") and enumerates the decoded fields returned plus mined/pending status, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like evm_tx_status or evm_receipt, which also concern transactions, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
"Use it to inspect any transaction" is the only usage guidance and is essentially a restatement of purpose. With evm_tx_status and evm_receipt in the sibling set, the description should say when this full lookup beats a status-only or receipt-only call, but it offers no such routing.
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.