get_contract_creationGet the creator address and creation transaction hash for up to 5 contract addresses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chainid | No | Numeric chain id (e.g. 1=Ethereum, 56=BNB, 137=Polygon). Defaults to server config. | |
| contractaddresses | Yes | List of contract addresses (1-5). |
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 communicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the returned fields but not edge-case behavior such as how missing or non-contract addresses are handled; this is acceptable but not exceptional given the annotations.
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 sentence that states the operation, key outputs, and cardinality constraint with no filler. The most important identifying information is front-loaded.
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 low-complexity read tool, the schema covers both parameters and annotations cover safety. The description names the two outputs despite the lack of an output schema; only minor details like exact response field names and error behavior are omitted.
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%: chainid default/format and contractaddresses pattern/min/max are already documented. The description's 'up to 5' repeats the schema's maxItems rather than adding new parameter meaning.
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 a specific resource (contract addresses), a specific verb (get), and the exact returned data (creator address and creation transaction hash). It also states the batch scope of up to 5, distinguishing it from sibling contract tools like get_contract_abi and get_contract_source.
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 context is clear: use this tool when you need contract creation provenance for one or more addresses. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusion cases, but the sibling names are dissimilar enough that no alternative would be confused.
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.