Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Tollkit Crypto

by io.github.UltraStarz
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Transaction lookup

transaction_lookup
Read-only

Look up a transaction on Base, Ethereum or Solana: did it succeed, when, who sent it, the fee, and every token movement with symbols and amounts (ERC-20 transfers; on Solana, SOL and token balance changes per owner). Use it to confirm a payment actually landed.

$0.002 USDC per call over x402. Failed calls cost nothing. Call without payment to get a quote.

When to use: You have a transaction hash and need to know if it went through and what moved. Parameters: hash: 0x hash on Base or Ethereum, base58 signature on Solana. chain: base (default), ethereum or solana; it must match the hash. Returns: status, time, sender, fee, and every token transfer with symbol and amount (on Solana, balance changes per owner).

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": {
      "hash": "<hash>"
    },
    "name": "transaction_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hashYes0x transaction hash, or base58 signature on Solana.
chainNo"base" (default), "ethereum" or "solana".
paymentNoBase64 x402 payment payload. Omit it to receive a quote; sign that and call again.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover readOnly/openWorld; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a $0.002 USDC x402 charge, that failed calls are free, and the two-step quote-then-sign flow via omitting `payment`. That pricing and payment-protocol detail is exactly the context an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability, then cleanly separated blocks for pricing, when-to-use, parameters, and returns. Slight redundancy: the return fields are enumerated in the opening sentence and again in the 'Returns:' line, which repeats rather than adds.

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

Completeness5/5

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 the response and does so explicitly (status, time, sender, fee, per-owner balance changes on Solana). Combined with the payment flow and chain-matching rule, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly on the first try.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by adding the cross-parameter constraint 'chain must match the hash' and restating the format split (0x hash on Base/Ethereum vs base58 signature on Solana) in a task-oriented way. It does not explain the payment payload format beyond what the schema already says.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('look up a transaction') plus the exact chains supported and the full field set returned (status, time, sender, fee, token movements). An agent can distinguish it from wallet_balance or token_info purely from the description, since those operate on wallets and tokens rather than a single tx hash.

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?

Explicit usage context is given twice: 'Use it to confirm a payment actually landed' and a dedicated 'When to use: You have a transaction hash...' line, which is a crisp entry condition. It does not name a sibling tool or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of the top band.

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

All Tollkit Crypto 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