SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

EVM contract verification status from Sourcify: match type

crypto_smart_contract_verify

Read-only

EVM contract verification status from Sourcify (open, no key): match type (exact/partial), compiler, contract name, ABI function and event counts, proxy implementations. Only verified contracts; source files are not returned. Unverified contracts give a 404. Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_basescan_contract_events when you need recent event logs of a contract on Base from public RPC. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "crypto_smart_contract_verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	Contract address, 0x + 40 hex characters
`chainId`	No	EVM chain id as a number (default 1 = Ethereum mainnet)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`match`	No
`source`	No
`address`	No
`chainId`	No
`isProxy`	No
`compiler`	No
`language`	No
`verified`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`functions`	No
`proxyType`	No
`eventCount`	No
`verifiedAt`	No
`contractName`	No
`runtimeMatch`	No
`creationMatch`	No
`functionCount`	No
`compilerVersion`	No
`implementations`	No
`fullyQualifiedName`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the key behavioral facts an agent needs: no API key required, source files are NOT returned, unverified contracts produce a 404, and billing is $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc with failed calls not charged. The 404-on-unverified behavior and the cost-on-success-only rule are exactly the kind of non-obvious traits annotations cannot convey.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The payload (returned fields, coverage limits, 404 behavior) is front-loaded in the first two sentences, and pricing/alternatives come after. Every sentence carries information, though the pricing clause listing three payment chains is slightly verbose for a tool-selection description. It remains compact enough to scan quickly.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the return-value enumeration is bonus rather than requirement, and the description still covers the limits (no source files, verified-only), the failure mode (404), cost, auth model (no key), and a sibling alternative. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this, or to interpret a failure, is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (address with '0x + 40 hex characters' and chainId with default 1) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that the scope is EVM chains and adds no format, range, or edge-case guidance for chainId. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names the specific resource (EVM contract verification status), the data source (Sourcify), and enumerates exactly what is returned: match type, compiler, contract name, ABI function/event counts, proxy implementations. That is far more specific than a generic 'get contract info'. It stops short of a 5 only because the leading phrase is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, and the differentiation from other verification sources (e.g. Etherscan-based checks) is only partial.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly routes one adjacent need away: 'crypto_basescan_contract_events when you need recent event logs of a contract on Base from public RPC', which tells the agent this tool is not for event logs. It also states the precondition that only verified contracts are useful and unverified ones 404. It does not state when to use this versus other verification/metadata approaches, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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

All SiteCheck Crypto & Finance tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?