Look up a transaction by its 64-character hash: whether it is in the mempool or mined, its block, confirmations, whether it is spendable yet, the pool that mined its block, and whether that height was ever contested by a reorg. No amounts, senders or recipients: the protocol encrypts them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tx_hash | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns transaction status, block info, confirmations, spendability, pool, and reorg contest, and explicitly states it omits amounts/senders/recipients due to encryption. This gives the agent a clear picture of behavior. It doesn't mention error handling for invalid hashes, but for a read-only lookup this is acceptable.
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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the action and lists the return fields in a clear sequence. It includes a caveat about missing fields, all without redundancy. It is concise, though slightly long.
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 tool has one parameter and no output schema, so the description must explain what the agent gets back. It lists the returned fields (mempool/mined, block, confirmations, spendable, pool, reorg contest) and notes the exclusion of sensitive data. It lacks details on output format or not-found behavior, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably 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?
The schema only defines tx_hash as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description adds essential semantic meaning by specifying it must be a 64-character hash, which constrains the format and clarifies what value to pass. This compensates well for the schema gap.
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?
States it looks up a transaction by its 64-character hash and enumerates the exact data returned (mempool/mined status, block, confirmations, spendability, pool, reorg contest). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_block or search_block which deal with blocks, not transactions.
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 makes the tool's purpose obvious for transaction lookups, and it explicitly notes what it does NOT return (amounts, senders, recipients) due to encryption, which helps an agent decide it's the right tool. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the siblings are all block/network focused.
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.