ScorpTech x402 API

Evm Create Address

evm_create_address

Read-onlyIdempotent

Predict EVM contract addresses before deployment: CREATE (deployer + nonce, RLP-encoded; up to 50 consecutive nonces) or CREATE2 (deployer + salt + init code or its keccak256 hash, EIP-1014). Works for every EVM chain; returns EIP-55 checksummed addresses. No network calls. Price: $0.002 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: GET https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/evm-create-address

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": {
      "deployer": "<deployer>"
    },
    "name": "evm_create_address"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`salt`	No	CREATE2: 32-byte salt (0x-hex, left-padded, or decimal)
`count`	No	CREATE: how many consecutive nonces to list
`nonce`	No	CREATE: account nonce of the deployer (contracts start at 1)
`deployer`	Yes	Deploying account or factory (0x address)
`initCode`	No	CREATE2: init code hex (alternative to initCodeHash, max ~1.9 KB in a URL)
`initCodeHash`	No	CREATE2: keccak256 of the init code (0x + 64 hex)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds what annotations cannot: pure computation with 'No network calls', EIP-55 checksummed output, a hard 50-nonce cap, and the $0.002 USDC x402 payment cost plus an HTTPS fallback endpoint. The 'no network calls' statement sits slightly at odds with openWorldHint=true, but the x402 payment path plausibly accounts for that, so it is not a clear contradiction. What's missing is error behavior when inputs conflict.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and mode split, then output format, then cost/endpoint. Dense and largely waste-free, though the pricing and URL tail is operational detail that isn't strictly needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and a dual-mode contract, the description covers mode selection, return format (checksummed addresses), computational guarantees, and pricing. It leaves only edge cases (conflicting nonce/salt, behavior beyond nonce 50) unspecified.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: it ties nonce and count to the CREATE path, ties salt/initCode/initCodeHash to CREATE2 with EIP-1014, and notes initCode and its hash are alternatives. That clarifies parameter interdependencies the schema lists only individually.

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?

States a specific verb ('Predict') and resource ('EVM contract addresses') and enumerates the two supported derivation schemes (CREATE with deployer+nonce, CREATE2 per EIP-1014). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling read/query tools like evm_contract_info or evm_read.

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 implicitly routes the caller: use nonce/count for CREATE, salt plus initCode or initCodeHash for CREATE2, and notes the 50-nonce ceiling for the consecutive listing mode. It doesn't name a sibling alternative or state exclusions (e.g., what to do if both nonce and salt are supplied), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

All ScorpTech x402 API tools Inspect

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

Need Help?