Skip to main content
Glama

Find internal calls and contract creations

portal_evm_query_traces
Read-only

Query raw EVM traces: internal calls, contract creations, self-destructs, and block rewards, filtered by caller, callee, method, deployer, or one transaction, with the parent transaction hash on every row.

COMMON USER ASKS:

  • Internal calls of one transaction

  • Recent internal calls into a contract

  • Contracts deployed by an address

FIRST CHOICE FOR:

  • what a transaction called internally, including value moved by internal calls

  • contracts deployed by an address, or the internal call tree behind an incident

WHEN TO USE:

  • You need the internal calls of a transaction: which contracts it called, with what selector and value, and which calls failed.

  • You want contracts created by a deployer or the creation trace of a contract.

  • You are tracing an exploit or incident below the top-level transaction and log surface.

  • You want internal ETH transfers between contracts that emit no event.

DON'T USE:

  • You only need top-level transactions or event logs; those tools are cheaper.

  • You need storage changes; state diffs are not exposed by this tool.

EXAMPLES:

  • Internal calls of one transaction: {"network":"ethereum-mainnet","from_block":12244145,"to_block":12244145,"transaction_hash":"0x851bad0415758075a1eb86776749c829b866d43179c57c3e4a4b9359a0358231","limit":25}

  • Recent internal calls into a contract: {"network":"base-mainnet","timeframe":"10m","type":["call"],"call_to":["0x833589fCD6eDb6E08f4c7C32D4f71b54bdA02913"],"method":"transfer","limit":20}

  • Contracts deployed by an address: {"network":"base-mainnet","timeframe":"24h","type":["create"],"create_from":["0x4200000000000000000000000000000000000006"],"limit":10}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoFILTER: trace types. 'create' covers both CREATE and CREATE2; 'reward' only exists on proof-of-work history.
limitNoMax traces to return (default: 20, max: 25)
cursorNoContinuation cursor from a previous response
methodNoFILTER (call traces): method alias such as transfer, approve, deposit, or a 4-byte selector. Merges with call_sighash.
call_toNoFILTER (call traces): called addresses.
networkNoNetwork name or alias. Optional when continuing with cursor.
to_blockNoEnding block number. Traces are expensive: keep filtered windows under 5,000 blocks.
call_fromNoFILTER (call traces): calling addresses, contracts or wallets.
timeframeNoTime range (e.g., '10m', '1h'). Alternative to from_block/to_block. Keep it short for traces.
from_blockNoStarting block number (use this OR timeframe)
scan_orderNoWhich side of the block window to scan first. Use earliest for first-occurrence questions.latest
create_fromNoFILTER (create traces): deployer addresses.
call_sighashNoFILTER (call traces): 4-byte selectors such as 0xa9059cbb.
field_presetNoField preset: 'minimal' (type, from, to), 'standard' (value, selector, gas, result address), 'full' (adds call input and output and creation code).standard
to_timestampNoEnding timestamp. Accepts Unix seconds, Unix milliseconds, ISO datetime, or relative input like "now".
finalized_onlyNoOnly query finalized blocks
from_timestampNoStarting timestamp. Accepts Unix seconds, Unix milliseconds, ISO datetime, or relative input like "1h ago".
max_scan_blocksNoSafety cap for bounded scans. Default: 5,000 blocks with filters, 100 without.
response_formatNoResponse format: defaults to 'compact' for chat-friendly output. Use 'summary' for counts by type, failures, value moved, and top callers.
transaction_hashNoFILTER: keep only traces of this transaction. Give its block (from_block = to_block) or a window of at most 1,000 blocks; find the block with portal_evm_query_transactions first when unknown.
include_subtracesNoAlso return the child traces of each matching trace
include_transactionNoAttach the parent transaction (sender, recipient, value, status). The hash is always attached.
create_result_addressNoFILTER (create traces): deployed contract addresses.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_uiNoChart, table, and follow-up presentation metadata.
_appNoSQD Explorer identity and host-render state.
_llmNoHints to locate the primary evidence.
_metaNoNetwork, block range, timing, and row counts.
errorNoStructured failure details.
itemsNoPrimary rows for list results.
valueNoPrimary scalar result.
answerNoAnswer grounded in the returned data.
_noticeNoLimitation or truncation notice.
_serverNoSQD server name, exact version, and git commit.
displayNoLabels for presenting the result.
_noticesNoLimitation or truncation notices.
_summaryNoHuman-readable summary.
_coverageNoWindow and result completeness.
_evidenceNoReplayable arguments, digest, row count, and receipt.
_orderingNoOrdering guarantees.
_executionNoBounded execution and scan details.
_freshnessNoFreshness and finality.
next_stepsNoSafe follow-up actions and continuation guidance.
_paginationNoPagination state and next_cursor.
investigationNoEvidence paths, pivots, and limitations.
pipes_handoffNoSQD Pipes guidance for custom data needs.
_tool_contractNoTool identity, intent, and chain families.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds meaningful behavior: traces are expensive and windows should stay under 5,000 blocks, state diffs are not exposed, the parent transaction hash is attached to every row, and 'reward' only exists in proof-of-work history. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

The description is well-structured with front-loaded summary, clear section headers, and valuable examples. However, there is some redundancy between COMMON USER ASKS and WHEN TO USE, with the same use cases repeated in different phrasing, so not every sentence earns a unique place.

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 complex 23-parameter tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers when to use, when not to use, example parameter sets, performance constraints, a cross-reference to portal_evm_query_transactions for finding blocks, and explicit exclusions like state diffs. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all 23 parameters. The description adds value beyond that by providing three concrete example JSON payloads that map common user asks to parameter combinations, and by clarifying filter categories and field presets at a task level. This is helpful but not essential given the schema completeness.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Query raw EVM traces: internal calls, contract creations, self-destructs, and block rewards' and lists concrete filters. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools by positioning it below the top-level transaction and log surface, so an agent can tell it apart from portal_evm_query_transactions and portal_evm_query_logs.

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 WHEN TO USE and DON'T USE sections are explicit and actionable, covering internal-call tracing, deployer lookups, incident analysis, and event-less ETH transfers, while excluding top-level transactions, event logs, and storage changes. The only gap is that it refers to 'those tools' without naming the specific sibling tools, though the intent is clear from context.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.