Get bytecode at an address on Mezo testnet. Returns "0x" for EOAs (wallets), non-empty hex for contracts. Use to determine if an address is a contract or EOA, and to retrieve deployed bytecode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| block | No | Block to query (default: "latest") | |
| address | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint. Description adds valuable context: returns '0x' for EOAs, non-empty hex for contracts, which helps interpret the response. This goes beyond annotation disclosure.
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?
Two sentences, no waste, front-loaded action.
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 output schema, the description explains return values and use case. Covers both parameters contextually, and read-only nature is in annotations. Sufficient for this simple tool.
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 covers block with description but address lacks description. Tool description clarifies the address argument via context, but doesn't elaborate on block semantics. Coverage at 50% is borderline; description partially compensates.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'Get bytecode at an address on Mezo testnet.' Explicitly distinguishes from siblings by specifying testnet and explaining return semantics for EOAs vs contracts.
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?
States 'Use to determine if an address is a contract or EOA' which gives clear context. Does not explicitly mention alternatives like mezo_get_code, but network specificity provides implied guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool is clearly distinguished by a network prefix (btc, btc_testnet, eth, mezo, mezo_testnet) and a unique operation (get_balance, get_block, get_transaction, etc.). There is no overlap between tools; even similar operations like get_balance and get_token_balance are explicitly separated for different asset types.
Tool names follow a consistent pattern of network prefix followed by a verb_noun operation (e.g., btc_get_balance, mezo_get_token_info). Minor deviations like eth_gas_price instead of eth_get_gas_price and eth_estimate_gas do not disrupt the overall predictable structure.
With 46 tools, the server feels heavy and overwhelming. While each tool covers a specific network and operation, the count far exceeds the typical well-scoped range of 3-15 tools, even considering the multi-chain nature of the server.
The server provides a solid read-only surface for Bitcoin and EVM chains (balance, blocks, transactions, logs, token info, fees). However, it lacks any transaction creation or broadcasting capabilities, and there is no eth_call for arbitrary contract calls, leaving notable gaps for common blockchain workflows.