Status of an on-chain transaction by hash: mined or pending, success or revert with the decoded revert reason, gas used, block and confirmations. Chains: base, ethereum, arbitrum, optimism, polygon. Paid tool: $0.002 per call via x402 (USDC on Base, Arbitrum, Polygon or Solana).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | base | |
| tx_hash | Yes |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does a good job: it discloses the paid nature ($0.002/call), the x402 payment mechanism with currency options, and the exact output contents including decoded revert reason. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth setup for x402, but the payment disclosure is a significant transparency win that most tool descriptions omit.
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 sentences deliver high information density: output contents, chain support, and pricing/payment. There's zero filler. It could arguably split chains/pricing into clearer subsections, but for the density it achieves, the structure is efficient.
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 read-only transaction-query tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: input semantics, output fields, chain scope, and cost. It doesn't describe pagination (unlikely needed for a single-tx lookup) or error formats, but the tool's simplicity means the coverage is near-complete.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry semantic weight. It explains tx_hash is the identifier and chain is the network selector with a default of base. The chains list effectively documents the chain parameter's valid values even without enums in the schema. This meaningfully compensates for zero schema coverage.
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 verb+resource (status of an on-chain transaction by hash) and enumerates exactly what information is returned: mined/pending state, success/revert with decoded reason, gas used, block, and confirmations. It also lists the supported chains, distinguishing this from sibling tools like tx_preflight (pre-tx check) and token_status (token-focused).
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 specifies the chains where the tool applies and explicitly notes it's a paid tool with per-call pricing. It gives clear context for when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for when NOT to use it—but the supported-chains list and paid status provide useful boundary conditions. The price disclosure also helps the agent weigh this against free sibling tools.
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 clearly separate (validate_vat, validate_iban, token_status, tx_status), but several overlap by combining the same core checks: check_counterparty_eu, must_verify_before_pay, tx_preflight, and invoice_to_pay_dossier_eu all screen sanctions and/or do VIES/IBAN checks. The descriptions help, but the boundaries between a KYB check, a payment gate, and a transaction preflight are subtle enough that agents can easily pick the wrong one.
Names are uniformly lowercase snake_case, and patterns like validate_*, prepare_*, and *_eu give some predictability. However, the verb style is inconsistent: some tools are verb-led (read_url, screen_sanctions_eu, lookup_company_eu), others are noun-led (market_data, token_status, agentllm_micro), and paid/prepare pairs do not share a consistent naming scheme.
24 tools is at the upper edge of what is reasonable, and the server mixes several unrelated concerns: EU VAT/invoice compliance, sanctions/KYB, US import readiness, AI disclosure/LLM inference, market data, URL reading, and transaction status. The core comply-to-pay workflow is well represented, but the extra domains make the tool list feel heavier and less like a single coherent service.
The EU invoice/payment compliance flow is fairly complete: e-invoice validation, VAT rules, VIES, IBAN, sanctions, transaction preflight, payment decisions, bookkeeping statements, and receipt verification are all covered. Obvious gaps remain for such a broadly named server: no export/other product compliance, no broader EU regulatory coverage, and the key invoice guard explicitly does not cover duplicate-ledger detection, internal approval, or delivery checks.
