get_contract_abiGet the verified ABI (JSON) for a contract address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Contract address. | |
| chainid | No | Numeric chain id (e.g. 1=Ethereum, 56=BNB, 137=Polygon). Defaults to server config. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'verified' and 'JSON' but does not explain behavior for unverified contracts, error cases, or chain fallback behavior; this is acceptable but not rich.
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?
A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the key verb and resource with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to meaning.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and safety annotations, this description is nearly complete. It states the JSON return format; the only notable omission is behavior when no verified ABI exists, which is a minor gap.
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 description coverage is 100%, with address pattern and chainid examples/defaults already documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond naming the contract address, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('verified ABI (JSON) for a contract address'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_contract_source or get_contract_creation, which address different artifacts.
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?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no conditions or exclusions are mentioned. Among many similar get_* tools, the description leaves the agent to infer routing from the tool name alone.
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 target clearly distinct data types: balances, transactions, logs, contracts, tokens, gas, and chains. The main confusion risk is between get_transaction_status, get_transaction_receipt_status, and get_transaction_receipt, which all relate to transaction outcomes and could be easily misselected.
Every tool follows the get_<object> or get_<object>_<qualifier> snake_case pattern. The naming is highly predictable and makes the tool purpose evident from the name alone.
20 tools is on the heavier side, approaching the upper bound for a coherent MCP server. However, given Etherscan's broad read-only domain—addresses, transactions, contracts, tokens, logs, and gas—the count is defensible even if it feels somewhat large.
The toolset covers the major Etherscan data-access patterns: balances, normal/internal transactions, receipts, token transfers, contract ABI/source/creation, logs, and gas. Obvious gaps like fetching a block by number/hash or listing transactions within a block are missing, but agents can accomplish most explorer workflows.