Skip to main content
Glama

DERO MCP Server

by io.github.DHEBP

estimate_deploy_cost

Read-only

Composite: send a DVM-BASIC contract source to the daemon's gas estimator, then return the raw estimate alongside a plain-text breakdown (what each gas number means), the parsed contract surface, and curated DVM deploy docs as citations.

When to call: BEFORE asking a wallet to broadcast a deploy transaction, OR when explaining the cost of a contract to a user. PREFER this over chaining dero_get_gas_estimate yourself: this composite already explains gascompute vs gasstorage in plain language, parses the SC source to show what functions the user is about to deploy (reusing extractScSurface from explain_smart_contract), and protects against fabricating a breakdown when the daemon reports 0/0 with a non-OK status.

Input Requirements:

  • sc is REQUIRED. The full DVM-BASIC contract source — must contain at least one Function ... End Function block. A function body alone will fail with INVALID_INPUT.

  • signer is OPTIONAL. A dero1.../deto1... address that will sign the eventual deploy tx. The daemon uses it for fee context; omitting it still returns a meaningful estimate.

  • include_breakdown is OPTIONAL (default true). Set false when you only need the raw numbers (e.g. piping into a fee table).

Output: { estimate: { gascompute, gasstorage, status }, breakdown: { compute_note, storage_note, total_units } | null, signer_used, include_breakdown, sc_surface: { functions, stringkeys, uint64keys, raw_code_length, function_count }, related_docs }. breakdown is null when include_breakdown=false OR when the daemon returned 0/0 with a non-OK status (never fabricated). On DVM compile failure the composite returns a structured _meta.error with code INVALID_INPUT and the daemon's exact compile message in _meta.error.raw.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scYesDVM-BASIC contract source to deploy. MUST be the full contract (Function ... End Function blocks), not a function body alone.
signerNoOptional dero1.../deto1... signer for the eventual deploy tx.
include_breakdownNoDefault true. Set false to return raw estimate numbers only.

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses failure behavior: no fabricated breakdown when daemon returns 0/0 with non-OK status, null breakdown conditions, and structured _meta.error with INVALID_INPUT. It also explains the composite's reuse of extractScSurface and its protective role.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but well-structured with clear sections: composite behavior, when to call, input requirements, and output. Each sentence contributes non-obvious operational detail such as defaults, failure modes, and output shape; nothing feels redundant or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description provides a thorough output shape including estimate, breakdown, signer_used, include_breakdown, sc_surface, and related_docs. It also covers edge cases like compile failure and null breakdown, making the tool safe and understandable for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds substantial semantics on top: sc must contain at least one Function...End Function block and a function body alone fails with INVALID_INPUT; signer provides fee context but omission still yields a meaningful estimate; include_breakdown default true with a concrete use case for setting false.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific composite action: send DVM-BASIC source to the daemon's gas estimator and return raw estimate, breakdown, contract surface, and docs citations. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dero_get_gas_estimate and explain_smart_contract by framing itself as a composite with added explanation and failure protection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-call guidance: BEFORE asking a wallet to broadcast a deploy transaction, or when explaining contract cost to a user. It also explicitly says PREFER this over chaining dero_get_gas_estimate yourself, naming the alternative and giving a concrete reason.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All DERO MCP Server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that specify when to call it and how it differs from similar tools. Composite tools are well-defined, overlapping concerns are minimized.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a general pattern: 'dero_' for core daemon RPC wrappers, 'tela_' for TELA-specific composites, and descriptive names for other composites. While mostly consistent, there are exceptions like 'audit_chain_artifact_claim' and 'dero_durl_to_scid' breaking the pattern slightly.

Tool Count4/5

With 32 tools, the server is comprehensive but slightly heavy. However, each tool serves a specific need in the DERO ecosystem, covering chain queries, docs, TELA, and composite analyses. The count is justifiable given the domain breadth.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core chain operations, documentation, TELA app lifecycle, and common analytical tasks. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of wallet interaction tools or transaction submission, but these are outside the apparent read-only/analysis scope.

Resources