contract-profileContract structure ONLY: bytecode size, proxy detection (EIP-1167 / EIP-1967 implementation and admin) and owner() for any address on Base. NOT a security audit. For a full token check that also adds risk flags and pool liquidity, use token-due-diligence; to read an arbitrary view function use contract-read. Price: 0.0050 USDC per call (premium: always paid).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Address (0x...) to inspect |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real value on top: a per-call price of 0.0050 USDC marked always-paid, plus a chain restriction to Base. It does not state what happens for a non-contract/EOA address or how failures are reported, which keeps it below a 5.
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?
One dense but well-ordered block: scope and outputs first, then exclusions and sibling redirects, then price. Every clause carries information an agent needs, with no filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it does so by naming the exact fields (size, proxy implementation/admin, owner). Payment model and chain scope are disclosed, so nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.
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% for the single address parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds that the address may be "any address on Base," which implies EOAs are accepted, but it offers no format or validation detail beyond the schema's "Address (0x...)" hint.
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 names the specific resource (contract structure) and enumerates exactly what is returned: bytecode size, EIP-1167/EIP-1967 proxy implementation and admin, and owner(). It also scopes the tool to "any address on Base," so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening the schema.
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?
It explicitly rules out the near-miss use case ("NOT a security audit") and names two alternatives with the conditions that select them: token-due-diligence for risk flags plus pool liquidity, and contract-read for arbitrary view functions. Both exclusions and redirects are stated, not implied.
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.