Crypto Bot Audit + Market Data (x402 paid)

Is this address a contract?

chain_code

Read-onlyIdempotent

eth_getCode size check: bytecode length plus whether the address is a contract at all — the two-second answer to 'did I just send funds to an EOA'. Costs $0.001 USDC per call. Chains: base, ethereum, arbitrum, bsc, polygon, optimism, avalanche. Byte-identical to GET /chain/code?chain=base&address=0x833589fCD6eDb6E08f4c7C32D4f71b54bdA02913.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	Yes	chain key: base, ethereum, arbitrum, bsc, polygon, optimism, avalanche [required]
`address`	Yes	target address, 0x + 40 hex [required]

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ts`	No
`note`	No
`chain`	No
`stale`	No
`caveat`	No
`reason`	No
`source`	No
`address`	No
`chainId`	No
`chainLabel`	No
`codePrefix`	No
`isContract`	No
`bytecodeSize`	No	bytes of deployed code

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 25, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "address": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "bytecodeSize": {
+      "description": "bytes of deployed code",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "caveat": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "chain": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "chainId": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "chainLabel": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "codePrefix": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "isContract": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "reason": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "source": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "stale": {
+      "type": [
+        "boolean",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "ts": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedSep 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints by specifying the eth_getCode size-check mechanism, per-call cost, supported chains, and REST equivalence, without contradicting any annotation.

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 description is compact and front-loads the core purpose before cost and chain support. The byte-identical REST reference is mildly extra but useful and does not bloat the text.

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?

For a simple two-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it checks, when to use it, cost, and supported chains. It does not describe alternatives or edge cases, but those are not critical given the schema and annotation coverage.

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 the baseline is 3. The description largely reiterates what the schema already provides (chain keys and address format) with the example URL, adding little new meaning beyond an illustrative concrete address.

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 clearly states the tool's function: an eth_getCode size check that reports bytecode length and whether an address is a contract, aimed at answering 'did I just send funds to an EOA'. This is specific and actionable, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely named siblings like chain_code_at or chain_contract_check.

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?

The description gives a clear use case: 'the two-second answer to did I just send funds to an EOA'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or which sibling to prefer, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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

All Crypto Bot Audit + Market Data (x402 paid) 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?