Skip to main content
Glama

Crypto, web, finance and app data tools

Verified Contract ABI (Sourcify)

contract_abi

ABI and readable function/event signatures of a verified smart contract from Sourcify, with contract name, compiler, licence, proxy implementation and deployer. Use before calling or decoding a contract.

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_abi"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoethereum
addressYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it discloses the returned metadata fields and the Sourcify source, which is useful. However it omits what happens for unverified contracts, chain default behavior, and any error/limits, leaving real gaps.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with what it returns and closing with usage. No filler, though the returned-field list is slightly dense within one clause.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description still carries the no-annotation behavioral burden and leaves the chain param and unverified-contract behavior unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning for either 'address' or 'chain'. It only implies via 'a verified smart contract' that address is a contract address, and never mentions the chain parameter or its ethereum default.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource (ABI and readable function/event signatures) and source (Sourcify) with a concrete verb. It distinguishes itself from contract_info by emphasizing ABI/signature output plus compiler, licence, proxy and deployer fields, though it doesn't name the sibling directly.

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?

'Use before calling or decoding a contract' gives clear context for when to reach for this tool, implicitly pointing at read_contract and decode_calldata workflows. It doesn't explicitly name those alternatives or state 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.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources