Decode transaction calldata against the contract's verified ABI (Sourcify): function signature, selector, and argument values (static types decoded; dynamic types shown raw and labeled).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Calldata (0x…, at least the 4-byte selector) | |
| chain | Yes | Chain slug, e.g. 'eth_mainnet' | |
| address | Yes | Contract address (0x…) |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful detail: static types are decoded, dynamic types are shown raw and labeled, and decoding depends on a Sourcify-verified ABI. It does not cover failure modes such as missing ABI verification or invalid calldata, but it conveys core behavior honestly.
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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then specifies output details and type-handling behavior. Every clause contributes useful information.
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?
The tool is relatively simple and all three parameters are fully documented, and the description does enumerate output components. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not specify the exact return structure or error behavior when the ABI is not verified or calldata is invalid.
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 the parameters are already documented with descriptions for chain, address, and data. The description reinforces that 'data' is calldata and clarifies output behavior, but it does not add meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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's action and resource: decode transaction calldata against a verified Sourcify ABI, with specific outputs listed (signature, selector, argument values). It is distinct from siblings like get_abi or verify_signature, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.
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 description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or preconditions beyond the implicit requirement of a Sourcify-verified ABI. It does not mention related tools like get_abi or explain_error that an agent might consider instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.