Verified contract ABI (+ name, match level) from Sourcify's open dataset. Chains: eth_mainnet, base_mainnet, arbitrum_one, optimism_mainnet, polygon_pos. Unverified contracts return verified:false with the path to fix it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the data source, the supported chains, and the unverified-contract behavior (verified:false plus a remediation path). It does not cover invalid inputs or rate limits, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the supported chains and the unverified behavior. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler or repetition.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential contract: what is returned, where it comes from, which chains are valid, and the failure mode. An agent has enough information to select and invoke it correctly.
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?
The schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage. The description adds value by enumerating the exact supported chain slugs, which the schema does not constrain with enums, giving the agent concrete valid 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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieving the verified ABI for a contract from Sourcify, and adds extra payload context (name, match level). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like decode_calldata or get_balances, which target different data.
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 intended use is implied by the purpose and the supported chain list, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It provides context but no direct routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.