Etherscan

Get Contract Source

get_contract_source

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verified contract source code, compiler version, optimization settings, and license.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No	Chain slug or chain ID (default ethereum)
`address`	Yes	Contract address

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`abi`	No	ABI string or null
`runs`	No	Number of optimization runs or null
`proxy`	No	Whether contract is a proxy
`address`	Yes	The queried contract address
`chain_id`	Yes	Numeric chain ID
`verified`	Yes	Whether contract is verified on Etherscan
`chain_name`	Yes	Human-readable chain name or null
`source_code`	No	Source code or null
`license_type`	No	SPDX license type or null
`contract_name`	No	Name of the contract
`implementation`	No	Implementation address if proxy, else null
`compiler_version`	No	Solidity compiler version used
`optimization_used`	No	Whether compiler optimization was enabled
`constructor_arguments`	No	Constructor arguments or null

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, not destructive. The description adds specific data fields returned (source code, compiler version, etc.), providing useful context beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with the key information about what the tool returns.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown) and clear annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., contract must be verified) or what happens if not verified.

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 parameters are documented. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states what the tool returns: verified contract source code, compiler version, optimization settings, and license. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_contract_abi' which returns ABI.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. The purpose is clear but there is no description of when not to use or comparison with siblings like 'get_contract_abi'.

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

All Etherscan tools Inspect

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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation1/5

Multiple tools serve nearly identical purposes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) with only marginal differences, and the Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread) heavily overlaps in its goal of finding betting edges. An agent would struggle to pick the right tool without reading every description in detail.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: verb_noun (get_balance, list_transactions), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), brand prefixes (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges), and adjectival forms (deep_research, compare_entities). The naming is readable but does not follow a single predictable convention.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the count exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' even for a general-purpose data server. The situation is worsened by the fact that the server is named Etherscan but only 5 of the 36 tools relate to Ethereum/blockchain, making the count unjustified for the apparent purpose.

Completeness4/5

For the de facto domain (Pipeworx data routing, prediction-market research, entity profiles, claim validation, subscriptions, memory), the tool surface is quite comprehensive: it covers lookup, research, comparison, grounding, and monitoring. Missing are a few edge operations (e.g., no Etherscan transaction-by-hash tool), but the broader domain is well-covered with only minor gaps.

Get Contract Source

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources