Get bytecode at an address on Mezo. 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 and openWorldHint annotations, the description reveals concrete return behavior: 'Returns "0x" for EOAs (wallets), non-empty hex for contracts.' This is crucial for interpreting results and 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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return semantics and usage. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.
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?
The description covers the primary purpose, return interpretation, and a key use case, which is sufficient for a simple read-only tool with no output schema. It omits the block parameter context and doesn't distinguish from testnet variants, but those are minor gaps given sibling names.
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 description coverage is 50% (only block has a description; address only has a pattern). The description adds no details about the block parameter or address format, relying entirely on the schema's pattern for address and description for block.
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 action (Get), the resource (bytecode at an address), and the network (Mezo), and explains the return semantics ('0x' for EOAs, non-empty hex for contracts). This distinguishes it from siblings like eth_get_code (Ethereum) and testnet variants.
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?
It explicitly provides a use case: 'Use to determine if an address is a contract or EOA, and to retrieve deployed bytecode.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for other networks (e.g., eth_get_code or mezo_testnet_get_code), relying on the network name in the tool name to imply scope.
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.