Resolves the contract interface JSON (ABI) for Sourcify-verified smart contracts on Base or Ethereum, with Blockscout as a fallback. Matches: verified ABI fetcher, contract JSON interface loader, decode transaction calldata helpers, verified contract methods parser.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | Target blockchain (ethereum or base) | base |
| address | Yes | Smart contract hex address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must bear full disclosure. It reveals the source dependency (Sourcify) and fallback (Blockscout), which implies failure modes. However, it does not address authentication, rate limits, or behaviors on missing contracts.
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?
The description is concise at two sentences, with a functional first sentence and a helpful list of matching use cases. No filler, though the list could be integrated more smoothly.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers core purpose and sources. It does not detail return format or error handling, but the output is implicitly the ABI JSON. Slightly incomplete for a tool without an output schema.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new information about parameters beyond the schema (e.g., address format, chain options). The schema already provides examples and enum values.
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 resolves the ABI JSON for Sourcify-verified contracts on Base/Ethereum with a Blockscout fallback. It uses specific verb 'Resolves' and resource 'contract interface JSON (ABI)', and lists matching use cases, distinguishing it from siblings like getWalletBalances.
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 'Matches' list hints at usage contexts (e.g., decode transaction calldata helpers) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like simulateTransaction. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving it to the agent to infer.
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.
Many tools have overlapping functionality, e.g., auditNetworkHost combines DNS, SSL, and header checks that have dedicated tools (auditDnsSecurity, checkSslExpiry, auditSecurityHeaders). Multiple weather and blockchain tools also overlap in scope, making it difficult for an agent to choose the right tool.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., getAirQuality, checkDnsPropagation), but a few deviate (agentPreflight, capabilitiesDiff) and some use compound names (depositCoordinationBounty). Overall, the pattern is clear but not perfectly uniform.
With 56 tools, the server is far too large for a coherent MCP surface. The number suggests a collection of many unrelated APIs rather than a focused tool set. A typical well-scoped server has 3-15 tools.
While the tool set covers many domains, each domain has shallow coverage. For example, blockchain tools miss basic transaction sending and contract deployment; weather tools lack forecasts. The 'requestMissingData' endpoint acknowledges gaps, but the current surface is severely incomplete for a general-purpose API.