Skip to main content
Glama

Transaction

get_tx
Read-onlyIdempotent

One EVM transaction by hash: block, sender, receiver, value and result, with its explorer link. The hash is sent to the explorer to look it up, so give only a transaction hash, never a key. Ask: "Explain transaction 0x…"

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": "get_tx"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hashYes0x-prefixed 32-byte transaction hash

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
networkYestestnet or mainnet
summaryYesone plain sentence

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world behavior; the description adds value beyond them by disclosing that the hash is forwarded to a third-party explorer and that only a hash (never a key) should be supplied, a meaningful privacy/safety note.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the safety constraint, then the example trigger. Slightly informal with the quoted prompt example, but each sentence contributes.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers scope, return contents, external lookup behavior, and input safety. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% with a pattern, so the schema already defines the hash format; the description still adds semantic guidance by stressing that the value must be a transaction hash and never a private key, preventing a plausible misuse.

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 and resource ('One EVM transaction by hash') and enumerates the returned fields (block, sender, receiver, value, result, explorer link), which clearly separates it from sibling lookups like get_block or get_account.

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?

The 'Ask: "Explain transaction 0x…"' phrasing gives an explicit trigger context for when to reach for this tool, and the hash-only instruction steers input choice. No explicit exclusion of alternatives is given, but the single-transaction scope is unambiguous.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.