Skip to main content
Glama

Abstraxn Agent Layer

by io.github.sandeep-antier

Get transaction status

network.transaction_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the status of a transaction. Supports both EVM (transaction hash) and Solana (signature). Free, read-only.

Use this to confirm a transfer landed, debug a failed transaction, or report status to a user. Both chain and transaction_hash are required. Available chains: solana, solana-devnet, ethereum, sepolia, polygon, amoy, bsc, bsc-testnet, base, base-sepolia, tempo, tempo-testnet, arbitrum-one, monad, skale-base-sepolia.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainYesBlockchain network. One of: solana, solana-devnet, ethereum, sepolia, polygon, amoy, bsc, bsc-testnet, base, base-sepolia, tempo, tempo-testnet, arbitrum-one, monad, skale-base-sepolia
transaction_hashYesTransaction hash (EVM, 0x + 64 hex) or Solana signature (base58).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNo
fromNo
chainNo
errorNo
valueNo
statusNoe.g. "success", "failed", "not_found", "pending".
gasUsedNo
messageNo
gasPriceNo
timestampNo
blockNumberNo
transaction_hashNo
blockNumberDecimalNo

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: 'Free, read-only' and the support for both transaction hash formats. No contradictions exist.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage context, requirements, and a chain list. It is slightly redundant with the schema's enum list, but overall it is compact and every section serves a purpose.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description covers all necessary context: use cases, supported networks, parameter requirements, and safety profile. It lacks only minor behavioral details (e.g., pending timeouts) that are not essential for this tool.

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 description coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for both chain and transaction_hash, including enum values and format hints. The description adds little beyond repeating requirements and chain list, so it does not meaningfully enhance schema-provided semantics.

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?

The description opens with 'Check the status of a transaction' – a clear verb+resource pair. It explicitly states support for both EVM and Solana, distinguishing it from sibling tools like network.gas_info or network.blocknumber. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 description gives explicit use cases: 'confirm a transfer landed, debug a failed transaction, or report status to a user.' It also notes both parameters are required. While it does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria, the context is clear and sufficient given the sibling set.

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

All Abstraxn Agent Layer toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are broadly distinct by domain (market, network, social, travel, web3), but some overlap exists between market.crypto and network.token_price (both provide token prices), and between network.token_info and web3.lookup's token_metadata action. However, the descriptions clarify the differences well.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names use a domain.subdomain pattern (e.g., market.crypto, network.gas_info), but the subdomains mix styles: dots (market.crypto), underscores (network.token_info), and plain names (travel.search). Additionally, actions within tools like 'places.lookup' have inconsistent naming (text_search_full vs. solar_building_insights).

Tool Count4/5

With 11 tools covering diverse domains (crypto, network, places, social, travel, web3), the count is reasonable. However, some tools encapsulate many actions (e.g., market.crypto has 6 actions, places.lookup has 12), hinting at a slightly heavy surface, but overall it fits the broad scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core workflows for each domain: crypto market data, network operations (block, gas, transfers, tokens), place search, social profile lookup, travel search, and web3 lookups. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for sending transactions or managing user accounts), but the stated purpose (agent layer for diverse tasks) is mostly fulfilled.

Resources