Skip to main content
Glama

🐴 Gulltoppr

by io.github.portdeveloper

Encode a function call

encode_call
Read-only

Encode a function call to calldata (0x…) without sending anything.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argsNoFunction arguments, in order. Pass uint values as decimal strings.
chainYesChain alias from GET /v1/chains (for example "ethereum", "base", "monad", "bsc") or numeric EIP-155 chain id.
valueNoNative value in wei (decimal string), for payable functions.
addressYes0x contract address.
rpc_urlNoOverride HTTP(S) RPC URL. Required for chains with no default (e.g. local/31337) or custom EVM chain ids.
functionYesFunction name, or full signature like "transfer(address,uint256)" if overloaded.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesRaw form: calldata (0x-prefixed hex bytes).
function_signatureYes

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description confirms 'without sending anything', which aligns with read-only behavior. It adds value by clarifying no state change occurs, which is not explicitly in annotations. No contradictions.

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 a single concise sentence with 8 words, containing no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters, the description is minimal but sufficient given the high schema coverage and presence of an output schema. It clarifies the key behavioral aspect (no sending). Slightly more detail on the encoding process would improve completeness, but current level is adequate.

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% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates the tool's purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 the tool encodes a function call to calldata without sending, using a specific verb ('encode') and resource ('function call'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'simulate' (sends) and 'decode_tx' (decodes).

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?

The description implies usage when you need calldata encoding without execution, but it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like 'prepare_tx' or 'decode_tx'. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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

All 🐴 Gulltoppr toolsInspect
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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: decode vs encode, prepare vs simulate, resolve ABI vs selector, etc. No two tools overlap in functionality.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores (e.g., decode_tx, list_chains, resolve_abi, runtime_metrics). The only exception is 'simulate', which is a single verb but still clear and consistent with the style.

Tool Count5/5

12 tools is an ideal count for a blockchain interaction server. Each tool covers a necessary step in the workflow without being overwhelming or sparse.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of contract interaction: resolve ABI, encode/decode, simulate, prepare unsigned transactions, look up selectors, resolve names, and list chains. No obvious gaps given the server's purpose of preparing actions for external signing.

Resources