Contract / bytecode summary: whether the address is a contract, bytecode size and any embedded CBOR metadata, via public EVM JSON-RPC and block-explorer / Sourcify HTTPS. Read-only; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | EVM chain (default: ethereum). | |
| address | Yes | EVM address (0x-hex) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description discloses it is read-only, free, and uses external public data sources (EVM JSON-RPC, block-explorer, Sourcify). It does not mention potential rate limits or authentication needs, but provides sufficient context for a simple read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then details on outputs, data sources, and pricing. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description explains expected return values (contract status, bytecode size, CBOR metadata) and data sources. It could include caveats about data freshness or error handling, but overall is adequate for a straightforward tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (chain, address). The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks if an address is a contract, provides bytecode size and CBOR metadata. It distinguishes from sibling onchain risk tools (e.g., address_risk, token_safety) by focusing on contract verification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for contract/bytecode analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., onchain_risk_address_risk). No guidance on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinguished by domain prefixes (e.g., bid_watch, grant_watch) and specific action verbs. However, the high number of similarly structured watch tools could still cause confusion, though descriptions clarify exact purposes.
Every tool follows a consistent `domain_subdomain_action` pattern with underscores, e.g., `agent_audit_query`, `bid_watch_search`. Even long names like `commerce_catalog_agent_readiness_score` adhere to this structure.
With 147 tools, the server is far too broad, covering weather, carbon estimates, domain intel, and more—well beyond its stated 'Japan public-data ledgers' scope. This sheer volume overwhelms agents and dilutes focus.
The server offers many read-only tools for Japanese public data (bids, grants, licenses, etc.), but lacks create/update/delete operations for those domains. Additionally, numerous unrelated tools (e.g., carbon estimates, weather) feel tacked on, leaving gaps in core coverage.