Compute the transaction hash from a base64-encoded envelope XDR for Stellar networks including testnet, mainnet, futurenet, and local, so you can verify or sign transactions.
Calculate the hash of a transaction envelope
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tx_xdr | Yes | Transaction XDR to hash (base64) | |
| network | No | Stellar network |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the basic action. It omits the critical behavioral fact that the resulting hash depends on the network passphrase, and says nothing about determinism, error behavior, or whether signed/unsigned envelopes are accepted.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriately sized for the stated action. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a cryptographic operation.
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?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it never explains that network selection affects the hash, nor what the returned hash represents. The agent lacks enough context to call this correctly in a non-mainnet scenario.
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 both tx_xdr (base64) and the network enum are fully documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, notably silent on the fact that the optional network parameter changes the hash output.
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?
States a specific verb (calculate) and resource (hash of a transaction envelope), so the agent knows this is a hashing operation rather than the sibling decode/encode/simulate tools. It does not explicitly contrast itself with stellar_tx_decode or stellar_xdr_encode, so sibling differentiation is only implied by the verb.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stellar_tx_decode or stellar_tx_simulate, and no note on prerequisites such as whether the envelope must be signed or fully assembled. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.