Base Intel MCP

Tx Status

tx_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Confirm a Base transaction's status by hash: check if it is pending, succeeded, or failed, with from, to, value, block number, and gas used.

Instructions

Look up a Base transaction by hash and report whether it is pending, succeeded, or failed, with from, to, value, block number, and gas used. Use it to confirm a payment or contract call landed. Input: the transaction hash (0x + 64 hex; the 0x is optional).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hash`	Yes	Transaction hash, 0x followed by 64 hex characters (the 0x prefix is optional).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No
`from`	No
`hash`	No
`found`	No
`status`	No
`network`	No
`gas_used`	No
`value_eth`	No
`provenance`	No	Where this answer came from. served_at is when Datakoot answered (UTC); upstream lists the official sources consulted. Datakoot may serve a briefly cached copy, so the source's own observation can be older than served_at.
`block_number`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the possible statuses (pending, succeeded, failed) and returned fields, which enriches understanding of what the tool reports without contradicting annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose and returned data, the second gives usage and input format. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and input format adequately. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already fully documents the hash parameter including format and optional 0x prefix. The description repeats this information verbatim, adding no new semantic value.

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 states a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('Base transaction by hash') and enumerates the reported fields and statuses. It is clearly distinct from siblings like address_report, token_info, token_balance, and gas_now, which cover addresses, tokens, balances, and gas—not transaction status.

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?

It gives a clear use case: 'Use it to confirm a payment or contract call landed.' This provides explicit context for when to call it, though no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server