Skip to main content
Glama

helius_poll_transaction_confirmation

Monitor Solana blockchain transactions for confirmation status by polling with customizable timeout and interval settings.

Instructions

Poll for transaction confirmation status

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
signatureYes
timeoutNo
intervalNo

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function that implements the polling logic using Helius RPC's pollTransactionConfirmation method.
    export const pollTransactionConfirmationHandler = async (input: PollTransactionConfirmationInput): Promise<ToolResultSchema> => {
      try {
        const status = await (helius as any as Helius).rpc.pollTransactionConfirmation(input.signature, { timeout: input.timeout, interval: input.interval });
        return createSuccessResponse(`Transaction status: ${status}`);
      } catch (error) {
        return createErrorResponse(`Error polling transaction confirmation: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}`);
      }
    }
  • Tool definition including name, description, and input schema for validation.
    {
      name: 'helius_poll_transaction_confirmation',
      description: 'Poll for transaction confirmation status',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          signature: { type: 'string' },
          timeout: { type: 'number' },
          interval: { type: 'number' }
        },
        required: ['signature']
      }
    },
  • src/tools.ts:586-586 (registration)
    Registration of the handler in the central handlers dictionary.
    "helius_poll_transaction_confirmation": helius.pollTransactionConfirmationHandler,
  • TypeScript type definition for the handler input parameters.
    export type PollTransactionConfirmationInput = {
      signature: string;
      timeout?: number;
      interval?: number;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'polling' which implies iterative checking, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's blocking or non-blocking, error handling, rate limits, or what confirmation status entails (e.g., success/failure). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves network operations.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity and front-loaded with the core action, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity (polling operation with 3 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return values, error conditions, or operational context, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional assumptions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters (signature, timeout, interval), the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain what 'signature' refers to (e.g., transaction signature), what units 'timeout' and 'interval' are in, or their roles in the polling process, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Poll for transaction confirmation status' states the action (poll) and resource (transaction confirmation status), but it's vague about what polling entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'helius_get_transaction' or 'helius_get_bundle_statuses' that might also provide transaction status information. It specifies the purpose but lacks detail on scope or mechanism.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'helius_get_transaction' that might retrieve transaction data, the description doesn't indicate if this is for real-time monitoring, post-submission checks, or specific use cases, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dcSpark/mcp-server-helius'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server