Batch multiple read-only contract calls into a single RPC round trip via Multicall3 on Mezo testnet (0xcA11bde05977b3631167028862bE2a173976CA11). Returns success status and raw return data for each call. Use allowFailure=true to prevent one failed call from aborting the whole batch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| calls | Yes | Array of calls to batch (at least 1) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description builds on that by adding behavioral details: it returns per-call success status and raw data, and explains how allowFailure prevents batch abort. This exceeds the baseline and provides useful operational context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three compact sentences front-load the primary purpose, then provide address and return format, and finally a failure-handling hint. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential return structure (success status and raw data). It also specifies the network, contract address, and failure behavior. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning when to prefer a single-call tool, but it is largely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal parameter-level meaning. The allowFailure behavior is already documented in the schema, and the description simply reiterates it without new syntax or edge-case details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Batch') with a clear resource ('multiple read-only contract calls') and differentiates the tool by specifying Multicall3 on Mezo testnet with the contract address. It clearly states the output (success status and raw return data), distinguishing it from sibling tools like eth_multicall or single-call tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies the tool is for batching independent read-only calls on Mezo testnet to reduce RPC round trips. It provides a concrete usage hint for allowFailure but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for state-changing calls or for mainnet).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.