Skip to main content
Glama
0xKoda
by 0xKoda

eth_getCode

Retrieve smart contract bytecode from any Ethereum address to verify functionality or analyze deployed code at a specific block.

Instructions

Retrieves the code at a given Ethereum address

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesThe Ethereum address to get code from
blockParameterNoBlock parameter (default: "latest")latest

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'eth_getCode' tool. It makes an RPC call using makeRpcCall to retrieve the bytecode at the specified address and block parameter, then formats the response text accordingly, indicating if it's a contract or not.
    async (args) => {
      try {
        console.error(`Getting code for address: ${args.address} at block: ${args.blockParameter}`);
        
        const code = await makeRpcCall('eth_getCode', [args.address, args.blockParameter]);
        
        return {
          content: [{ 
            type: "text", 
            text: code === '0x' ? 
              `No code found at address ${args.address} (this may be a regular wallet address, not a contract)` : 
              `Contract code at ${args.address}:\n${code}`
          }]
        };
      } catch (error) {
        return {
          content: [{ type: "text", text: `Error: Failed to get code. ${error.message}` }],
          isError: true
        };
      }
    }
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the 'eth_getCode' tool: 'address' (required, valid Ethereum address) and 'blockParameter' (optional, defaults to 'latest').
      address: z.string().regex(/^0x[a-fA-F0-9]{40}$/).describe('The Ethereum address to get code from'),
      blockParameter: z.string().default('latest').describe('Block parameter (default: "latest")')
    },
  • index.js:105-133 (registration)
    Registration of the 'eth_getCode' tool on the MCP server using server.tool(), specifying name, description, input schema, and handler function.
    server.tool(
      'eth_getCode',
      'Retrieves the code at a given Ethereum address',
      {
        address: z.string().regex(/^0x[a-fA-F0-9]{40}$/).describe('The Ethereum address to get code from'),
        blockParameter: z.string().default('latest').describe('Block parameter (default: "latest")')
      },
      async (args) => {
        try {
          console.error(`Getting code for address: ${args.address} at block: ${args.blockParameter}`);
          
          const code = await makeRpcCall('eth_getCode', [args.address, args.blockParameter]);
          
          return {
            content: [{ 
              type: "text", 
              text: code === '0x' ? 
                `No code found at address ${args.address} (this may be a regular wallet address, not a contract)` : 
                `Contract code at ${args.address}:\n${code}`
            }]
          };
        } catch (error) {
          return {
            content: [{ type: "text", text: `Error: Failed to get code. ${error.message}` }],
            isError: true
          };
        }
      }
    );
  • Helper function 'makeRpcCall' used by the eth_getCode handler to perform the actual Ethereum JSON-RPC call to eth_getCode.
    async function makeRpcCall(method, params = []) {
      try {
        const response = await axios.post(ETH_RPC_URL, {
          jsonrpc: '2.0',
          id: 1,
          method,
          params
        });
    
        if (response.data.error) {
          throw new Error(`RPC Error: ${response.data.error.message}`);
        }
    
        return response.data.result;
      } catch (error) {
        console.error(`Error making RPC call to ${method}:`, error.message);
        throw error;
      }
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves code but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not explicit), potential rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid address), or what 'code' entails (e.g., bytecode, source code). This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with blockchain data.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of Ethereum interactions and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., hex-encoded bytecode), error handling, or behavioral traits like idempotency. For a tool with no structured safety or output information, more context is needed.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters (address and blockParameter). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining why blockParameter matters or address format nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('retrieves') and resource ('code at a given Ethereum address'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like eth_getBalance (which retrieves balance rather than code), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eth_getBalance or eth_gasPrice. It lacks context about typical use cases (e.g., verifying contract deployment, analyzing smart contracts) or prerequisites, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/0xKoda/eth-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server