stake.link Agents (stakedotlink.money)

sdl_get_contract_abi

Fetch the verified ABI for a live stake.link contract from Sourcify.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "contract": "<contract>"
    },
    "name": "sdl_get_contract_abi"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`contract`	Yes	Contract id, name, or address.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only external fetch from Sourcify but does not state what happens for unverified contracts, whether results are cached, or error behavior for unknown contracts.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the verb, resource, scope and source are all stated immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple single-parameter read tool the core is covered, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say more about the returned ABI shape and the unverified-contract case to be fully complete.

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% and the single contract parameter is documented in the schema as 'Contract id, name, or address.' The description adds no format details beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (verified ABI) with a clear scope qualifier (live stake.link contract from Sourcify). It is distinguishable from siblings like sdl_get_contract and sdl_get_contract_source, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to pick this over sdl_get_contract or sdl_get_contract_source, which are the obvious adjacent tools.

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

All stake.link Agents (stakedotlink.money) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?