cardano_transaction_txidExtract the transaction ID (hash) from a signed or unsigned Cardano transaction file. Pass the file path to return the txid as a hex string.
Get the transaction ID (hash) from a transaction file.
Args:
tx_file (string): Path to the transaction file (signed or unsigned)
Returns: The transaction ID as hex string.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tx_file | Yes | Path to the transaction file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the file may be 'signed or unsigned', which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it does not mention error handling, file format expectations, or performance characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and includes a clear Args section and Returns line. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete: it specifies the input, notes that the file can be signed or unsigned, and states the return format as a hex string. Annotations provide the safety profile, so nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already documented. The description adds the detail that the transaction file can be signed or unsigned, which enriches the semantic meaning of tx_file beyond the schema's 'Path to the transaction file'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('transaction ID (hash)') and source ('from a transaction file'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like cardano_transaction_view, which may also expose transaction IDs, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer that it's for extracting a transaction ID from a local file, but no conditions or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.