Get bytecode at an address on Ethereum mainnet. Returns "0x" for EOAs (wallets), non-empty hex for contracts. Use to determine if an address is a contract or EOA, and to retrieve deployed bytecode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| block | No | Block to query (default: "latest") | |
| address | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important return behavior: 'Returns "0x" for EOAs (wallets), non-empty hex for contracts.' This adds valuable context about what the tool returns and how to interpret it, which is not present in the schema or 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?
The description is two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the main purpose ('Get bytecode at an address on Ethereum mainnet') and immediately provides return semantics and use case, earning its space.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with annotations indicating safety and an open world, the description is complete. It explains the return values, the network scope, and when to use it, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly without needing an output schema.
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?
The schema already documents the 'block' parameter with a default value, and the 'address' parameter has a pattern. The description mentions 'at an address' but does not elaborate on the address format or the meaning of the block parameter. With 50% schema coverage, the description adds only minimal semantic value beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool gets bytecode at an address on Ethereum mainnet, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'Ethereum mainnet' and by explaining the return format for EOAs vs contracts, which differentiates it from other eth_* tools like eth_get_balance.
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?
Describes an explicit use case: 'Use to determine if an address is a contract or EOA, and to retrieve deployed bytecode.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The use case is specific enough to guide an agent.
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.
Every tool is clearly distinguished by a network prefix (btc, btc_testnet, eth, mezo, mezo_testnet) and a unique operation (get_balance, get_block, get_transaction, etc.). There is no overlap between tools; even similar operations like get_balance and get_token_balance are explicitly separated for different asset types.
Tool names follow a consistent pattern of network prefix followed by a verb_noun operation (e.g., btc_get_balance, mezo_get_token_info). Minor deviations like eth_gas_price instead of eth_get_gas_price and eth_estimate_gas do not disrupt the overall predictable structure.
With 46 tools, the server feels heavy and overwhelming. While each tool covers a specific network and operation, the count far exceeds the typical well-scoped range of 3-15 tools, even considering the multi-chain nature of the server.
The server provides a solid read-only surface for Bitcoin and EVM chains (balance, blocks, transactions, logs, token info, fees). However, it lacks any transaction creation or broadcasting capabilities, and there is no eth_call for arbitrary contract calls, leaving notable gaps for common blockchain workflows.