API Acre

crypto.base-event-logs

Read-onlyIdempotent

Query validated eth_getLogs events from one Base mainnet contract using a required event signature and optional indexed topic filters across a bounded resolved block range.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum newest-first validated logs returned
`topics`	Yes	One required event-signature topic followed by optional indexed topic values or null wildcards. Signature-only scans are limited to 100 resolved blocks; adding an indexed value permits up to 2,000.
`contract`	Yes	The 20-byte Base mainnet contract whose event logs are queried
`block_tag`	No	Base block tag resolved once as the inclusive upper bound	safe
`lookback_blocks`	No	Inclusive resolved Base blocks to scan; defaults to the 100-block signature-only ceiling and may be raised to 2,000 with an indexed topic value

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	Yes	Structured Base contract event logs result
`meta`	Yes
`service`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`request_id`	Yes	Unique request identifier

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive), so the description adds value by specifying 'validated' events and a 'bounded resolved block range.' This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not mention rate limits or other operational details.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and clearly conveys the tool's scope and constraints. Every word adds value with no redundant information.

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 moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, rich parameter descriptions, and comprehensive annotations, the description sufficiently covers the core behavior and constraints. It appropriately communicates the single-contract scope and bounded block range, making the tool adequately understandable for an agent.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description summarizes the key parameters (event signature, topic filters, block range) but does not add new meaning beyond what is already in the schema, thus earning the baseline score.

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 queries validated eth_getLogs events from one Base mainnet contract, with a specific verb, resource, and scope (required event signature, optional topic filters, bounded block range). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like transaction inspection or contract reads.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: querying event logs from a single contract. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, the context is strong enough that an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate compared to other Base-specific tools.

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

All API Acre tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped into clear domain prefixes (crypto, data, developer, document, research, web) and each tool name describes a specific function; however, a few umbrella tools like web.full-audit and data.contract overlap with their more targeted counterparts, creating minor ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent pattern: a domain prefix, a dot, and a hyphenated lowercase compound name (e.g., crypto.base-block-inspect, web.seo-audit). This makes naming predictable and easy to scan.

Tool Count1/5

At 63 tools, the surface area is very large and exceeds the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. While the tools are organized into six domains, the sheer number makes it difficult for an agent to select efficiently, and some tools are bundled combinations of others.

Completeness5/5

Each domain offers a thorough set of operations: crypto covers address, account, block, contract, events, gas, and transaction inspection; data covers cleaning, conversion, schema, and validation; developer covers code review, dependency/license audits, and test generation; research covers SEC, OFAC, GLEIF, and USAspending; web covers extraction, SEO, security, and performance. No obvious dead ends exist for the read-only/inspection purpose.

Resources

Need Help?