Retrieve a past execution record by transaction ID. Returns inputs, outputs, latency, price, data provenance, success/failure status, and failure categorization. Use this to inspect what a previous strale_execute call returned, debug failures, or provide an audit trail. Free-tier transactions are accessible by ID without an API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transaction_id | Yes | Transaction ID returned from a strale_execute call |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return fields (inputs, outputs, latency, price, etc.) and the API key requirement for free-tier access. It does not mention potential failure modes, rate limits, or data retention, but the disclosed information is substantial and useful.
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 three sentences with no wasted words. It opens with the primary purpose, then lists return value specifics, and closes with usage context and access requirements. Each sentence earns its place and the structure is immediately scannable.
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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is complete: it specifies what the tool returns (compensating for the missing output schema), highlights the relevant sibling relationship to strale_execute, and mentions authentication nuances. No critical context is missing for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.
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?
The input schema describes transaction_id as 'Transaction ID returned from a strale_execute call', which already fully documents the sole parameter. The description echoes this ('previous strale_execute call') but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') with a clear resource ('past execution record by transaction ID') and enumerates the returned content (inputs, outputs, latency, price, data provenance, success/failure status, failure categorization). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like strale_execute, which creates executions.
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?
It explicitly states when to use this tool: to inspect previous strale_execute results, debug failures, or provide an audit trail. It also notes that free-tier transactions are accessible without an API key, providing important context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool addresses a distinct function: balance checks, capability execution, onboarding, methodology docs, connectivity, registry search, transaction history, trust profiling, and on-chain assurance. There is no overlap or ambiguity between tool purposes.
All tools follow the consistent pattern of a 'strale_' prefix with lowercase snake_case names (e.g., strale_balance, strale_getting_started). The naming is uniform and predictable across the entire set.
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of exposing core interactions with a 290+ capability API. It avoids bloat while providing all necessary operations without being too sparse.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: discovery (strale_search), execution (strale_execute), financial management (strale_balance), audit (strale_transaction), trust evaluation (strale_trust_profile), specialized on-chain checks (strale_web3_assurance), plus support functions (getting_started, ping, methodology). No obvious gaps exist.
