API Acre

crypto.calldata-decode

Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve 29 common ERC-20, ERC-165, ERC-721, ERC-1155, ERC-2612, and ERC-3009 selectors without a network lookup, or strictly decode arbitrary Ethereum or EVM calldata using a supplied Solidity signature.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`calldata`	Yes	ABI argument bytes, optionally prefixed by the four-byte function selector
`input_mode`	No	Whether calldata includes a selector. Auto consumes a matching supplied-signature selector, or resolves a built-in standard selector when function_signature is omitted.	auto
`function_signature`	No	Optional Solidity function signature, including argument types but no parameter names. When omitted, calldata must include a selector from the bounded built-in ERC-20, ERC-165, ERC-721, ERC-1155, ERC-2612, or ERC-3009 set.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	Yes	Structured Calldata decoder 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, such as 'without a network lookup' (offline operation) and 'strictly decode' (strictness), plus the bounded selector set. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the main actions and avoids redundancy. It is slightly dense due to the compound structure, but every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a rich output schema and fully described parameters, the description covers the essential operational modes and the offline property. Nothing critical appears missing; the combination of description and schema gives a complete picture for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual framing by relating the two modes—resolving built-in selectors vs. using a supplied signature—to the parameters. This helps an agent understand how calldata, input_mode, and function_signature interact, going beyond individual schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb+resource: it resolves 29 common ERC selectors or decodes arbitrary EVM calldata. This distinguishes it from siblings like crypto.typed-data-hash, and the two modes are explicitly named.

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 does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's scope is self-evident: it is for decoding calldata or resolving standard selectors. The schema's input_mode and function_signature descriptions provide additional usage context, making the intended use clear.

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?