Return Base transaction success or revert state, block number, confirmations, gas used, and effective gas price for a transaction hash. $0.003/call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | Transaction hash, 0x-prefixed 64 hex chars |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost model ($0.003/call via x402) and lists the returned data fields, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention any failure modes or rate limits.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and lists the key return fields, followed by cost information. No redundant or filler content.
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 simple hash-lookup tool with one parameter, the description provides the necessary purpose, return fields, and cost. However, it omits any mention of error conditions (e.g., invalid hash, not found) or whether the tool is read-only, which could be useful in a complete context.
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 schema fully documents the single 'hash' parameter with type, pattern, and description, so the description adds no additional semantic meaning for parameters. It simply refers to 'transaction hash' in passing, which does not go beyond the schema's coverage.
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 clearly states the tool returns Base transaction status with specific fields (success/revert, block number, confirmations, gas used, gas price) for a transaction hash. This is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like base_block_number or base_gas_price beyond the resource type.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool—whenever a Base transaction hash needs status and receipt details—but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from alternative status-checking tools. No exclusions or selection criteria are given.
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.
Several tool groups are nearly indistinguishable: wallet_analyze, wallet_spy, and base_wallet_profile all inspect wallets; batch_extract, batch_url_json, and x401_batch_extract all batch-extract URLs; route_task, agentcore_route, and mpp_route all perform routing. An agent would need to read very carefully to avoid selecting the wrong tool.
All names are snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun or namespace pattern: many are noun-only (inference, echo, sentiment, server_time), some are prefixed by domain (bazaar_, base_, x402_, rep_), and action prefixes vary widely (fetch_, compile_, extract_, purchase_, route_). The naming is readable but not predictable across the set.
Seventy tools is an extremely large surface for an agent to choose from, and most appear to be independent paid service wrappers. This exceeds the 50+ extreme mismatch threshold in the calibration and creates an overwhelming selection problem.
Relative to its apparent purpose—exposing x402 payments and Bazaar market data—the coverage is extensive: diagnostics, preflight, settlement verification, receipt lookup, wallet checks, Bazaar analytics, web extraction, and text processing are all represented. The main gaps are operational side-effects like creating or updating a Bazaar listing, but those appear to be outside this read/purchase surface.