AgentReader

chain_code

Is this address a contract or a wallet (EOA)? eth_getCode → is_contract, bytecode size and prefix, EIP-7702 delegation detection. Example: {address:"0x8335…2913", chain:"base"}. Use /contract ($0.003) for proxy/owner/token detail. $0.001 USDC.

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": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "chain_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No
`wallet`	No
`address`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 6, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / wallet
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden: it discloses the underlying RPC method (eth_getCode), the returned fields, EIP-7702 handling and the per-call price in USDC. It does not state which chains are supported, what the default chain is, or what happens on an invalid/unfunded address, leaving some behavioral gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three terse sentences/segments, front-loaded with the core question, then output fields, then the sibling alternative and price. No filler; the telegraphic style (eth_getCode → is_contract) is dense but unambiguous for an agent.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description does list what comes back (is_contract, bytecode size and prefix, EIP-7702 delegation detection), which is the critical missing piece for a boolean-ish lookup tool. Still missing: supported chain list/default and the meaning of the 'wallet' parameter.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The example {address:"0x8335…2913", chain:"base"} implicitly shows the address format and that chain takes a network name, but the third parameter 'wallet' is never mentioned or explained anywhere, falling short of full compensation.

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?

Opens with a specific question the tool answers ('Is this address a contract or a wallet (EOA)?'), then names the mechanism (eth_getCode) and the returned fields (is_contract, bytecode size/prefix, EIP-7702 delegation). This clearly distinguishes it from chain_proxy, contract_info and token_metadata, which deal with proxy/owner/token detail.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly routes the agent with 'Use /contract ($0.003) for proxy/owner/token detail', stating the alternative and the condition that selects it. It also discloses cost differentials ($0.001 USDC), so the agent can choose on both capability and price.

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

All AgentReader 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?