Skip to main content
Glama

Hedera Toolbox

by com.hederatoolbox.api

contract_call

Read-only

Read-only call to a Hedera contract function. No tx submitted. 1.0 HBAR.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyYesYour HederaIntel API key
abi_hintNoOptional full function signature for precise ABI encoding e.g. 'balanceOf(address)' or 'getReserves()'
contract_idYesHedera contract ID (e.g. 0.0.123456) or EVM address (0x...)
return_typesNoOptional ABI return types for precise decoding e.g. ['uint112','uint112','uint32'] for getReserves, ['address'] for owner
function_nameYesContract function name to call (e.g. balanceOf, totalSupply, name)
function_paramsNoOptional array of parameter values to pass to the function

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context by stating 'No tx submitted' and '1.0 HBAR' (likely a cost or fee), which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's behavior and implications.

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 extremely concise with three short sentences, front-loading the primary purpose. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary elaboration or repetition.

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?

Given full schema coverage and annotations, the description is adequate for a straightforward read-only call. It mentions cost and safety, but does not explicitly describe the return value or when optional ABI hints are needed. Still, the schema documents parameters and the purpose is clear, so it is reasonably complete.

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% for all 6 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema descriptions are sufficiently explicit.

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 'call' on a 'Hedera contract function' and specifies it is 'Read-only' with 'No tx submitted', effectively distinguishing it from write operations. While a sibling tool 'contract_read' exists, the read-only framing helps differentiate the purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for read-only contract calls but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like contract_read or contract_analyze. It lacks exclusions or recommendations, leaving the usage context inferred rather than stated.

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

All Hedera Toolbox toolsInspect
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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (e.g., contract read vs. contract call vs. contract analyze; hcs monitor vs. hcs query vs. hcs understand). Even within closely related groups, descriptions clearly differentiate the specific purpose, so an agent is unlikely to select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a domain_action pattern (e.g., contract_analyze, token_monitor, hcs_verify_record), but some are verb_noun (get_terms, confirm_terms) and a few are noun_noun (account_info, token_price, fixatum_score). While not perfectly uniform, the prefixes make the intended domain clear and the overall structure is readable.

Tool Count3/5

With 25 tools, the server is on the heavy end of the typical MCP scope. While each tool serves a specific niche across multiple Hedera domains (contracts, HCS, tokens, identity, governance, Fixatum), the sheer number could increase selection complexity, but it remains within the borderline range rather than being excessive.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a broad range of read/analyze operations across major Hedera areas, plus essential write/verification capabilities (hcs_write_record, hcs_verify_record) and an onboarding flow (get_terms, confirm_terms). Minor gaps exist, such as no token transfer history or unregister/update for Fixatum, but the core analytical purpose is well covered.

Resources