Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

cleartrace

by com.cleartracedata
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Attribution and label for one address

contract_attribution

What ClearTrace knows about a single contract or wallet address: its per-chain volume split across the four attribution vectors, plus any label resolved for it.

Most useful on the ANONYMOUS routers and proxies that aggregate views leave unnamed -- that is the differentiated question this answers. Known, named protocol contracts are often keyed by name rather than address upstream and may return nothing here, so an empty result for a famous router is not evidence the address is obscure.

An address that resolves to no label is reported with a null label. Report that as 'not identified', which is what it means: these are genuinely anonymous deployments, and guessing an operator from volume or deployer alone has been wrong before.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "contract_attribution"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoOne of: ethereum, base, arbitrum, optimism. Omit to return the address's split across all four, which is usually what you want, since the same deployment often appears on several.
addressYesA single contract or wallet address, 0x-prefixed hex. Case-insensitive; checksummed or lowercase both work. One address per call.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / address / description
      Added value: +"A single contract or wallet address, 0x-prefixed hex. Case-insensitive; checksummed or lowercase both work. One address per call."
    • addedInput schema / properties / chain / description
      Added value: +"One of: ethereum, base, arbitrum, optimism. Omit to return the address's split across all four, which is usually what you want, since the same deployment often appears on several."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses that unlabeled addresses return a null label, that empty results can occur for well-known contracts, and that guessing an operator from volume or deployer is unreliable. This goes well beyond restating the tool's purpose and protects the agent from misinterpreting results.

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 front-loaded with a clear definition, and the following paragraphs provide valuable interpretive guidance rather than filler. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but each warning earns its place by preventing incorrect conclusions from empty or null results.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation scope, the effect of the optional chain parameter, and the important semantic states of the result (null label, empty result). An agent has enough context to select the tool and interpret its output correctly.

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%, and both parameters already have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The description adds minor context about the address being a single contract or wallet, but it does not substantially improve on the schema's parameter documentation.

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 opens with a precise, specific definition: it returns what ClearTrace knows about a single contract or wallet address, including per-chain volume split across four attribution vectors and any resolved label. It also explicitly differentiates itself from aggregate views by naming anonymous routers and proxies as 'the differentiated question this answers.'

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance ('Most useful on the ANONYMOUS routers and proxies') and explains a key caveat: known named protocol contracts may return nothing, so an empty result is not evidence of obscurity. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool to use instead, but the conditions for use are clearly implied.

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

All cleartrace toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources