Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SSIG MCP

SSIG MCP

by mrq1911
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get transaction request status

get_transaction_request
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the current status and wallet result of a transaction request by providing its request ID.

Instructions

Read the latest status and wallet result for one transaction request.

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": {
      "requestId": "<requestId>"
    },
    "name": "get_transaction_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the useful context that it returns the latest status and wallet result, which is beyond what annotations convey. No contradictions.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description is sufficient. It specifies what is read and the key output (status and wallet result), and the ownership of the output is clear. No output schema exists, but the description covers the essential return values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly indicates that requestId refers to the transaction request being read ('for one transaction request'), but does not elaborate on format or meaning beyond the schema, which already specifies uuid format. The single parameter is self-explanatory, but little added 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one transaction request'), and specifies what is returned ('latest status and wallet result'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_transaction_requests (plural) and cancel_transaction_request (write operation).

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?

The description implies use when a single transaction request's status is needed, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. It lacks guidance like 'use list_transaction_requests for multiple requests' or 'use cancel_transaction_request to modify a request'.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools