Skip to main content
Glama

🐴 Gulltoppr

by io.github.portdeveloper

Read a contract (view/pure)

read_contract
Read-only

Call a view/pure function and get the decoded result. No wallet, no cost. Rejects state-mutating functions.

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.
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
rawYesRaw form: calldata (0x-prefixed hex bytes).
decodedYes
function_signatureYes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds important behavioral context: 'No wallet, no cost' and 'Rejects state-mutating functions', which clarifies constraints beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action ('Call a view/pure function'). Every word adds value.

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?

Despite complexity of smart contract calls, the description is complete for a read-only tool with rich annotations and a full schema. It explains the action, constraints, and output ('decoded result'). Output schema exists but description doesn't need to repeat it.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning; it focuses on overall tool behavior, which is appropriate given the schema already describes all parameters.

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 ('Call') and resource ('view/pure function') and clarifies the result ('decoded result'). It distinguishes from siblings like simulate or prepare_tx by explicitly stating it is read-only and rejects state-mutating functions.

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?

It clearly states when to use: for view/pure functions, and when not: state-mutating functions are rejected. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like 'simulate' or 'prepare_tx', leaving some implicit guidance.

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