elysium-chain-mcp

Get transaction

get_transaction

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a transaction and its receipt by hash, optionally decoding input data and event logs with an ABI. Pending transactions return a null receipt.

Instructions

Fetch a transaction and its receipt by hash. With an ABI, the input data and event logs are decoded. If the transaction is still pending, receipt is null. systemTransaction is true for ArbOS-generated bookkeeping transactions (Arbitrum type 106, e.g. startBlock at index 0 of every block), which no user sent and which pay no fee.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`abi`	No	Optional ABI used to decode the input data and logs. Either a JSON ABI (array of items, or a single item), or human-readable signatures such as ["function balanceOf(address owner) view returns (uint256)", "event Transfer(address indexed from, address indexed to, uint256 value)"].
`hash`	Yes	Transaction hash: 0x followed by 64 hex characters.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fee`	Yes	gasUsed × effectiveGasPrice. null while pending or if the node reports no effectiveGasPrice.
`logs`	Yes
`note`	No
`value`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`receipt`	Yes	Receipt fields without logs (see logs). Arbitrum fields such as gasUsedForL1 are passed through.
`transaction`	Yes	Transaction fields. Integers are decimal strings.
`decodedInput`	Yes	Decoded call data, if an ABI was supplied and contains the called function.
`transactionType`	Yes	From the raw type field. 0-4 are standard Ethereum types sent by users; 100-106 are Arbitrum types (bridge deposits and messages from the parent chain, retryable redeems, ArbOS internal transactions).
`systemTransaction`	Yes	True for ArbOS internal transactions (type 106).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: pending transactions return a null receipt, and systemTransaction flags ArbOS type-106 bookkeeping txs that pay no fee — semantics an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then layers conditional behavior. Each sentence carries information, though the closing systemTransaction clause is long and reads more like a doc footnote than selection guidance.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be enumerated, and the description still covers the two edge cases an agent would otherwise misread — pending txs and system transactions. Combined with annotations, nothing needed to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so both hash and abi are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the ABI effect (decodes input data and event logs) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema's own examples. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a transaction and its receipt by hash'), and the retrieval key is named, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_block and get_logs. An agent knows exactly what it retrieves and by what identifier.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the name and scope (look up a tx by hash), and the conditional ABI-decoding behavior hints at when to supply that parameter. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, e.g. when to prefer get_logs or get_block, nor any statement of preconditions.

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

Deploy Server