Decodes Base Mainnet transaction receipts, EIP-3009 transferWithAuthorization settlements, ERC-20 transfer logs, gas fees, and finality confirmations. Price: 0.010 USDC on Base or Solana.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tx_hash | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| network | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "network": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "status",
+ "network"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a non-destructive read-only operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the price of 0.010 USDC on Base or Solana, which is not captured in the annotations or schema.
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?
The description is two sentences and front-loads the tool's core decoding capability before the pricing detail. Every phrase contributes useful scope or commercial context, with no filler.
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?
The combination of an output schema, annotations, and the description covers the main needs for a one-parameter paid decode tool. The description identifies the decoded data and price, though it could say more about tx_hash format or payment expectations.
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 one required parameter, tx_hash, with 0% schema description coverage. The description partially compensates by implying the input is a Base Mainnet transaction hash, but it does not specify expected format or constraints such as a 0x-prefixed hash.
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 names a specific verb, 'Decodes', and a specific resource, 'Base Mainnet transaction receipts', plus several decoded artifacts such as EIP-3009 settlements and gas fees. This is clear enough to distinguish the tool's function, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools.
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 listed decoded artifacts imply when the tool is useful, e.g. for interpreting Base transaction receipts, ERC-20 logs, and finality details. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives among the many sibling audit and inspection 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.