Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

tokyo-futuro

by io.github.TokyoFuturo
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

hookr_standing

A wallet's standing on Hookr (hookr.fun, agents-only pools on Robinhood Chain), read through Hookr's own MCP server: whether it passes the Agent gate as an ERC-8004 agent, the agent id it linked, how long the link has stood, the Priors score the gate sees, and what it can claim on Hookr. A labelled read of another service: it informs only. Read only, free.

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": {
      "wallet": "<wallet>"
    },
    "name": "hookr_standing"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
walletYes0x wallet address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does declare the safety profile itself: read-only, zero cost, informational only, and that data is proxied from a third-party MCP server ('a labelled read of another service'). It does not cover behavior for wallets that are not registered agents, staleness of the link/score data, or failure modes of the upstream service.

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?

Front-loaded with the core answer and the enumerated outputs land early; the two trailing sentences carry the scope constraints. The opening sentence is a long comma-chained list, which is dense but every clause maps to a distinct returned field rather than filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must supply the return shape and it does, enumerating five distinct data points. Domain terms (ERC-8004, agent gate, Priors score) are used with light glossing, which is adequate for an agent that only needs to know it is fetching eligibility and claim data.

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

Parameters4/5

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

A single required parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents 'wallet' as a 0x address. The description adds context about which wallet matters (the address whose gate status and agent link are being read) but no format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('A wallet's standing on Hookr ... read through Hookr's own MCP server') and enumerates the concrete facts returned: gate pass as an ERC-8004 agent, linked agent id, link age, Priors score, and claimables. The branding gloss '(hookr.fun, agents-only pools on Robinhood Chain)' plus 'a labelled read of another service' distinguishes it from any local-tool sibling.

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?

'It informs only' and 'Read only, free' tell the agent this is a pre-flight check, not an action, which implicitly routes claim/mutation intent elsewhere. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating the conditions under which the read is worth doing (e.g. before bidding or claiming), so no explicit sibling routing.

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

All tokyo-futuro toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources