Determine whether a Polygon address is a contract, retrieve its bytecode size, and obtain ERC-20 metadata. Get contract details and token info for any address.
Whether a polygon address is a contract, bytecode size, and ERC-20 metadata if applicable. Pay-per-call ($0.01 USDC).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | polygon address (0x...) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the operation is a read/check and mentions pay-per-call cost ($0.01 USDC), which is useful. However, it does not disclose what happens for non-contract addresses, whether ERC-20 metadata is optional or may be absent, or any error/edge-case behavior. The 'if applicable' is vague.
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 one sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes the cost note. It is concise and readable. Minor issue: 'if applicable' is slightly vague but not bloated.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and cost. However, it lacks detail on return values (bytecode size format, ERC-20 metadata fields) and edge cases (EOA addresses, invalid addresses). Given the simplicity, it is adequate but not complete.
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%: the only parameter 'address' is described as 'polygon address (0x...)'. The description adds that the tool checks bytecode and ERC-20 metadata, but does not add format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('is') and resource ('polygon address'), and mentions checking bytecode size and ERC-20 metadata. It distinguishes from sibling tools like polygon_balance or polygon_token, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The phrase 'if applicable' adds some ambiguity but overall the purpose is clear.
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 usage: call this to check whether an address is a contract and get bytecode size/ERC-20 metadata. It does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, but the sibling list shows other tools for balances, transactions, etc., so an agent can infer. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.