Crypto Bot Audit + Market Data (x402 paid)

Same contract, two addresses?

chain_contract_diff

Read-onlyIdempotent

Bytecode fingerprints of two addresses compared: size, SHA-256 and prefix/suffix equality — the question behind 'is this new token a redeploy of the one that ruggened last week'. Costs $0.001 USDC per call. Chains: base, ethereum, arbitrum, bsc, polygon, optimism, avalanche. Byte-identical to GET /chain/contract-diff?chain=base&address=0x833589fCD6eDb6E08f4c7C32D4f71b54bdA02913&other=0x833589fCD6eDb6E08f4c7C32D4f71b54bdA02913.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`a`	No
`b`	No
`ts`	No
`note`	No
`chain`	No
`stale`	No
`caveat`	No
`reason`	No
`source`	No
`chainId`	No
`sameSize`	No
`chainLabel`	No
`bothHaveCode`	No
`identicalBytecode`	No

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": {
+    "a": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "b": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "bothHaveCode": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "caveat": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "chain": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "chainId": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "chainLabel": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "identicalBytecode": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "reason": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "sameSize": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "source": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "stale": {
+      "type": [
+        "boolean",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "ts": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedSep 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: the exact comparison method (size, SHA-256, prefix/suffix equality), the cost of $0.001 USDC per call, supported chains, and that it is byte-identical to a specific GET endpoint.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core behavior first, adds a memorable use case, then lists cost, chains, and endpoint equivalence. Every sentence adds relevant decision or invocation information without unnecessary padding.

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?

For a simple three-parameter read-only tool with a full input schema and output schema, the description covers what it does, why it is useful, cost, supported chains, and an exact REST equivalent. No critical information for invoking the tool correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the structured schema already documents chain, address, and other. The description reinforces that the two addresses are compared bytecode-level and provides a concrete example URL, but it adds little substantive parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: comparing bytecode fingerprints (size, SHA-256, and prefix/suffix equality) of two addresses. It also grounds the purpose in a concrete question—detecting whether a new token is a redeploy of a previously rugged one—making it clear and distinct from related chain_* tools.

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 intended use case: checking if a contract at one address is a redeploy of another known contract. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is strong enough to guide an agent toward this tool for contract-diff comparisons.

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?