Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

SwapChan

by io.github.TSavo
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Look up a broadcast transaction

tx_status
Read-only

Confirmation status for a hash previously returned by broadcast_tx (or any hash): confirmed / pending / failed / not-found. EVM receipt, Solana signature status, Tron gettransactioninfobyid, Bitcoin mempool.space. Result includes display markdown with chan images: show it to the user. How to combine this with the other tools: swapchan_playbook (workflows: find-money, best-swap, rebalance, revoke-approvals, bridge-stuck, token-safety, recover-old-wallet).

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": {
      "chainId": "<chainId>",
      "hash": "<hash>"
    },
    "name": "tx_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hashYes
chainIdYesChain id (1, 8453, 42161, 10, 137, 56, 43114, 59144, 534352, 792703809 Solana, 8253038 Bitcoin, 728126428 Tron) or name (eth, base, arbitrum, optimism, polygon, bnb, avalanche, linea, scroll, solana, bitcoin, tron).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the enumerated status vocabulary, which chain-specific RPC backs each lookup, and the instruction that the returned `display` markdown with chain images must be shown to the user.

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 and status vocabulary are front-loaded in the first clause, and the practical 'show display to the user' instruction follows. The closing pointer to swapchan_playbook with a workflow list is slightly promotional and pads the length, but it is not wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so reasonably (status enum plus a markdown `display` field). For a two-parameter read-only lookup this is nearly complete, though it says nothing about latency, caching, or what the per-chain receipt objects contain.

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 50% – chainId is thoroughly documented in the schema (ids and names), while `hash` is undocumented. The description only loosely clarifies the hash parameter as 'previously returned by broadcast_tx', adding marginal meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('confirmation status for a hash') and enumerates the possible outcomes (confirmed / pending / failed / not-found) plus the per-chain backends used. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely named siblings verify_tx and explain_transaction, which an agent could easily confuse with this.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear context for use ('a hash previously returned by broadcast_tx (or any hash)') and points to swapchan_playbook for multi-step workflows. There are no explicit exclusions or a 'use X instead when…' statement relative to verify_tx, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All SwapChan 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