Retrieve Orderly smart contract addresses by chain, network, and contract type for mainnet or testnet integrations.
Get smart contract addresses for Orderly on specific chains
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | Chain name (e.g., 'arbitrum', 'optimism', 'base', 'ethereum', 'solana') | |
| network | No | Network type ('mainnet' or 'testnet') | mainnet |
| contractType | No | Contract type (e.g., 'vault', 'usdc', 'usdt') or 'all' for all contracts | all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or return format details.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The key operation and scope are immediately clear.
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 lookup tool with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return subject ('smart contract addresses'). It could say more about the return structure or contract type filtering, but the schema handles parameter details.
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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the chain, network, and contractType parameters. The description adds only the phrase 'specific chains,' which aligns with the chain parameter but does not add meaning 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get smart contract addresses for Orderly on specific chains.' It clearly identifies the operation and scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as documentation or API info 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 implies the tool is used when contract addresses are needed for a specific chain, but it does not state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. There are no explicit usage conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.