HEY Research Lab

Who made this contract

get_contract

Read-only

Who made this Robinhood Chain contract, and is it a known project's? Project, creation, deployer (the only account named, with a count of other tracked projects' tokens it deployed), published source code and whose code it is (template, bytecode match or its own), Sourcify's answer, proxy and implementation history, interface changes, 7 days of calls per method (counts, names withheld; a selector's signature candidate — a guess, never a name). Address (chainId default 4663) or slug for all of a project's. An unread proxy is "not read", never "not a proxy". Not a safety verdict.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	No	A project slug, for all of its contracts.
`address`	No	A 0x contract address; or give slug.
`chainId`	No	Default 4663.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`api`	Yes
`data`	No
`schema`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 5, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / address / description
```
Added value: +"A 0x contract address; or give slug."
```

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 30, 2026

removedInput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "api": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "data": {},
+    "schema": {
+      "const": "hey.mcp-api-answer",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "schema",
+    "api"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, the description discloses real behavioral quirks: an unread proxy is reported as 'not read' rather than 'not a proxy', method names are withheld and selector signatures are explicitly guesses, and it disclaims being a safety verdict. These are exactly the kind of data-caveats an agent needs and cannot get from annotations or schema.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The lead question is front-loaded well, but the body is a dense comma-spliced list that is hard to parse, and much of it re-enumerates return fields already covered by the output schema. It is information-rich but not efficiently structured.

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

Completeness4/5

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 enumeration is partly redundant, but the description still covers inputs, key interpretive caveats, and the limits of the data. The main gap is routing guidance relative to the seven sibling tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so address/slug/chainId are already fully documented, and the description largely restates them (chainId default 4663, slug returns all of a project's contracts). It adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opening question ('Who made this Robinhood Chain contract, and is it a known project's?') plus the enumerated outputs (deployer, source provenance, Sourcify answer, proxy history, method call counts) make the retrieval target unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_evidence or get_project_timeline, which could plausibly overlap with provenance and history.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by the field list; there is no explicit 'use this when' or named alternative. The closing 'Not a safety verdict' functions as a when-not hint, steering agents away from treating it as an audit tool, but no positive selection criteria are offered.

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

All HEY Research Lab 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.