Fetch events emitted by a smart contract using its contract ID. Supports pagination with limit and offset; use to monitor activity or debug.
Get events emitted by a smart contract.
Tip: call earning_opportunities to see how to put your assets to work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination | |
| contractId | Yes | Contract ID in format: address.contract-name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.77.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not ordering, deduplication across blocks, whether event payloads are decoded, nor how failures are reported for an invalid contractId. The schema's limit/offset implies pagination but the description never mentions it.
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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded with zero waste. The second sentence is a promotional non-sequitur about earning_opportunities that consumes space without helping the agent invoke this tool.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only place an agent could learn what the event records look like or how pagination behaves across a large event log — and it says nothing about either. For a 3-parameter query tool with a potentially unbounded result set, this is a meaningful gap.
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 contractId format (address.contract-name), limit default 20, and offset are already fully documented in structured fields. The description adds no semantics beyond that, which is the baseline case.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Get events emitted by a smart contract.' An agent immediately knows the operation is a read of contract event logs. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings like get_contract_info or get_account_transactions, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.
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?
No guidance on when to prefer this over get_contract_info, get_account_transactions, or call_read_only_function. The one routing hint present points at earning_opportunities, which is unrelated to reading contract events, making it actively unhelpful for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.