Skip to main content
Glama

verify_tx_decode

Read-onlyIdempotent

Cross-checks a prepared EVM transaction's calldata against function signatures from a public registry, re-decoding and re-encoding to verify consistency. Returns match or mismatch status to prevent signing incorrect transactions.

Instructions

Independent server-side cross-check of a prepared EVM tx's calldata. Fetches the function signature(s) registered for the 4-byte selector on 4byte.directory (a public registry), re-decodes the calldata via viem against each candidate, and re-encodes to prove the signature describes the exact calldata bytes losslessly. Returns a VerifyDecodeResult whose summary field is pre-written for end-user consumption — the orchestrator should relay it verbatim. Status values: match (independent decode agrees with local ABI), mismatch (function-name disagreement — DO NOT SEND), no-signature / error / not-applicable (no independent check possible; fall back to the swiss-knife URL). On TRON, returns not-applicable — TRON transactions carry no 4-byte selector so this cross-check doesn't apply. Handle is the same opaque ID returned by any prepare_* tool. NEVER do this check by scripting ad-hoc WebFetches to 4byte or swiss-knife; always call this tool so the check runs through a single auditable code path. This is deliberately more expensive than a 4byte-selector lookup — it proves the FULL calldata (not just the function name) is consistent with the independent signature.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
handleYesOpaque handle returned by any prepare_* tool. Use this when the original prepare_* response (and its VERIFY-BEFORE-SIGNING block) has been dropped from your context — the server re-emits the exact same JSON + verification block from in-memory state. Read the response from this tool directly; never recover verification data by reading tool-result files from disk.
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses that it fetches from 4byte.directory, re-decodes via viem, re-encodes, and is more expensive than a simple selector lookup. Describes the summary field as pre-written for end-user consumption. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint true, etc.). Adds value beyond annotations.

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?

The description is lengthy but every sentence provides necessary context. It is well-structured, starting with core purpose and then details. Slightly verbose but justified by complexity; could be trimmed slightly without losing value.

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?

Given the tool's role in transaction verification, the description covers all essential aspects: input, process, output (VerifyDecodeResult with summary), special case TRON, status meanings, and warnings. No output schema but enough detail for an agent to use correctly. Annotations support its safety.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter 'handle' is explained in detail: it is the opaque ID from prepare_* tools, to be used when context is lost; the server re-emits the same data; warns against reading from disk. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema description.

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 it performs an independent server-side cross-check of an EVM transaction's calldata. It specifies the verb (verify, cross-check) and resource (EVM tx calldata), and distinguishes itself from ad-hoc alternatives ('NEVER do this check by scripting ad-hoc WebFetches...').

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use (after preparing a transaction) and when not to use (on TRON returns not-applicable). Provides clear action based on status: mismatch means 'DO NOT SEND', and fallback recommendations for other statuses. Also names an alternative (swiss-knife URL) and warns against it.

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/szhygulin/recon-crypto-mcp'

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