Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bca-mcp

bca-mcp

by blockchainacademics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

scan_contract

Check EVM smart contracts for bytecode authenticity and honeypot risks by providing an Ethereum address.

Instructions

Basic static analysis on any EVM address: bytecode verification, honeypot check. Required: address (0x EVM address). Starter tier.

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": "scan_contract"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesRequired. EVM contract address (0x + 40 hex chars).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description states 'static analysis' and lists checks, implying read-only behavior. However, with no annotations, it should explicitly state that the tool does not modify state or require special permissions. The behavioral traits are implied but not fully disclosed.

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 conveys purpose and requirement without extraneous words. Perfectly concise.

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?

The tool has no output schema, yet the description fails to explain what the analysis returns (e.g., boolean, risk report). This is a critical omission for an analysis tool, making it incomplete despite the simple input.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the address parameter. The description adds no new semantic value beyond restating the requirement, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as performing basic static analysis on EVM addresses, specifically bytecode verification and honeypot check. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_rugpull_risk or check_phishing_domain, which focus on specific risk types.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description mentions the required parameter but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. other risk-checking siblings. It implies a basic analysis role but lacks when-not-to-use instructions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools