dexe-mcp

Transaction status

dexe_tx_status

Read-only

Check a transaction hash's receipt status to distinguish pending from not found; re-check after a broadcast timeout because the transaction may still confirm.

Instructions

Read-only. Receipt/status for a submitted tx hash (pending vs not_found). A broadcast timeout is not a failure — the tx may still confirm; re-check here.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "txHash": "<txHash>"
    },
    "name": "dexe_tx_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`txHash`	Yes	Transaction hash to look up
`chainId`	No	Chain to look the receipt up on. Default: the MCP's default chain.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.37.1Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The 'Read-only.' sentence merely restates readOnlyHint=true and earns no credit, but the description adds real behavior beyond annotations: a timeout is not a failure and the tx may still confirm, which shapes how an agent should interpret and retry. It stops short of describing the full set of possible outcomes (e.g. confirmed/success) or polling guidance.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and ending on the most actionable caveat; nothing is buried. The opening 'Read-only.' is redundant with the annotation and is the one sentence that does not earn its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it only enumerates pending and not_found while omitting the confirmed/success state entirely. For a tool whose entire value is the returned status, that omission leaves an agent uncertain how to interpret a successful receipt.

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%, so txHash and chainId, including the default-chain behavior, are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that the hash is a 'submitted tx hash' and adds no format, encoding, or chain-selection detail beyond the structured fields, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource and operation: a receipt/status lookup for a submitted tx hash, with the two outcome categories (pending vs not_found) named. It is clearly distinct from dexe_tx_send, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly-named sibling dexe_tx_approval_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?

Gives a concrete triggering condition most agents would get wrong: after a broadcast timeout, re-check here rather than treating the tx as failed. It lacks any explicit exclusion such as 'for approval state use dexe_tx_approval_status instead', so routing between the two status tools is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server