Skip to main content
Glama

🐴 Gulltoppr

by io.github.portdeveloper

Resolve contract ABI

resolve_abi
Read-only

Resolve a contract's interface from chain + address via a fallback ladder (Etherscan → Sourcify → proxy → heimdall decompile → 4byte). Returns a compact capability manifest (read vs write functions, the 'buttons'), proxy chain, token metadata, and PROVENANCE. ALWAYS read provenance: a decompiled ABI has synthetic function names — treat it with care and confirm intent before writing. Partial, proxy, and bytecode-match results lead with a WARNING before the JSON. The compact manifest/provenance is also returned as structuredContent. Use method_q/method_kind/method_limit for large ABIs. Raw ABI is omitted from MCP output to save tokens; use REST/SDK resolve_abi with include_abi=true if needed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.
method_qNoCase-insensitive manifest method search across names, signatures, parameters, outputs, and hints.
method_kindNoRestrict manifest methods to read, write, or all.
method_limitNoMaximum number of manifest methods to return after filtering.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainYes
proxyNo
tokenNo
cachedYes
abi_forYes
addressYes0x contract address.
interfaceYes
provenanceYes
abi_omittedYes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: fallback ladder, decompiled ABIs have synthetic names, proxy chain returned, raw ABI omitted to save tokens. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=true.

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?

Description is relatively long but every sentence adds functional value. Front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more concise but remains effective.

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?

Given output schema exists, description need not detail return values. It covers fallback ladder, warnings, proxy chain, token metadata, provenance, and large ABI handling. Fully complete for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters described). Description adds value by explaining method_q as case-insensitive search, method_limit as max methods, and reinforces chain types. Exceeds baseline.

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 it resolves a contract's interface from chain and address via a fallback ladder. It distinguishes from siblings by listing specific capabilities like proxy chain, token metadata, and provenance.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'ALWAYS read provenance' and 'treat it with care and confirm intent before writing.' Also suggests using method_q, method_kind, method_limit for large ABIs. Does not explicitly exclude contexts, but enough context given sibling tools are different.

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