Skip to main content
Glama
laszlopere

mcp-bytesmith

eth_contract_address

Compute a contract's CREATE or CREATE2 deployment address from deployer, nonce, salt, or init code without deploying.

Instructions

Compute a contract's CREATE or CREATE2 deployment address.

scheme=create -> needs nonce; address = keccak256(rlp([deployer, nonce]))[12:] scheme=create2 -> needs salt and init_code; address = keccak256(0xff ++ deployer ++ salt ++ keccak256(init_code))[12:] Returns {address}, EIP-55 checksummed. Computes only — nothing is deployed.

Example: eth_contract_address("create", "0x6ac7ea33f8831ea9dcc53393aaa88b25a785dbf0", nonce=0) -> address="0xcd234A471b72ba2F1Ccf0A70FCABA648a5eeCD8d".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
saltNoA 32-byte hex salt chosen by the deployer (required for scheme=create2).
nonceNoThe deployer's transaction nonce for this deploy (required for scheme=create; int, decimal string, or 0x-hex). A contract deployer's nonce starts at 1, an EOA's at 0.
schemeYes'create' derives from the deployer and its `nonce`; 'create2' (EIP-1014) derives from the deployer, a `salt`, and the `init_code`, so the address is known before deployment.
deployerYesThe deploying account's 20-byte hex address (0x optional, any casing) — an EOA for a top-level deploy, or the factory contract.
init_codeNoThe full contract creation bytecode as hex — constructor code plus its ABI-encoded arguments, NOT the deployed runtime code (required for scheme=create2).
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is a pure computation ('Computes only — nothing is deployed'), explains the formula step-by-step, and describes the return type (EIP-55 checksummed address). No destructive side effects, no permissions needed, fully transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is relatively concise given the complexity—two paragraphs and an example. It front-loads the purpose and then details the two schemes. The formula blocks are necessary but add length. No wasted sentences; every part adds value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite no output schema, the description specifies the return format (address, EIP-55 checksummed). All parameters are covered, including defaults and requirements per scheme. The example provides a concrete test case. The description is complete for this computation-only tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains the mathematical role of each parameter (e.g., nonce is the deployer's transaction nonce, init_code is the full creation bytecode), includes a concrete example with expected output, and clarifies the distinction between create and create2 parameters. This goes well beyond the schema's syntactic descriptions.

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 states the tool computes CREATE or CREATE2 deployment addresses, with specific verb 'compute' and resource 'contract address'. It distinguishes between the two schemes explicitly, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains when to use each scheme (create needs nonce, create2 needs salt and init_code) and provides a formula. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the context from sibling tools is not needed as this is a standalone computation. The description implies usage by showing required parameters for each scheme.

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/laszlopere/mcp-bytesmith'

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