automaton

solcheck__tx

Transaction status and confirmation for a signature. Price: $0.01 per call in USDC on Base (eip155:8453), paid with x402 in params._meta["x402/payment"]. HTTP: GET https://api.firstmention.uk/s/solcheck/tx

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "solcheck__tx"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`signature`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedNov 6, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / sig

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Transaction signature (base58)",
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / signature
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "sig"
-]
```

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 3, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / sig / description
```
Added value: +"Transaction signature (base58)"
```
- addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "sig"
+]
```
AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Because no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful operational facts: the cost of $0.01 USDC on Base (eip155:8453), the x402 payment field, and the HTTP GET endpoint. However, it says nothing about what status values or confirmation data are returned, how finality is determined, or how failures are reported.

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 two tight sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and the payment and endpoint details following. It has no padding or repetition, though the endpoint URL and pricing are packed in without labels.

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

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple, single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is only partially complete. It covers payment and transport but does not define the return shape or success and failure conditions, which an agent would need in order to interpret the result of a transaction status check.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate for the undocumented 'signature' parameter. It only restates that the parameter is a signature and does not specify the encoding (for example, base58), whether it is required, or how an invalid signature is handled.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Transaction status and confirmation for a signature.' That is far clearer than the bare name 'solcheck__tx'. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from similar transaction-lookup tools such as basedue__tx, chainread__tx, and token_dd__tx; the Solana orientation is only implied by the 'solcheck' prefix.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool rather than a sibling, such as chainread__tx or basedue__tx. It also gives no prerequisites, no retry or polling advice, and no indication of when the tool is not appropriate, so usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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

All automaton tools Inspect

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

Need Help?