SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Convex Finance governance on Snapshot: the newest proposals

crypto_convex_vlcvx_voting

Read-only

Convex Finance (cvx.eth) governance on Snapshot: the newest proposals (1 to 20) with title, state, start and end time, number of votes and the top two choice scores. Votes are the Snapshot tallies. vlCVX lock balances and per-wallet voting power are not in this source and are not reported. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "crypto_convex_vlcvx_voting"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	How many newest proposals, 1 to 20 (default 5)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No
`space`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`proposals`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, yet the description still adds real behavioral context: a per-call price ($0.002 USDC via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc), the fact that failed calls are free, and the explicit data-boundary exclusion of lock balances and voting power. Not covered: rate limits, caching/refresh cadence, or how fresh the "newest" proposals are.

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 purpose and returned fields, then scope exclusion, then pricing — a sensible information order with no filler. The pricing sentence is long but earns its place by changing an agent's cost calculus before calling.

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?

For a single-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema (so field formats need no prose) and existing safety annotations, this covers purpose, scope boundary, and cost. The remaining gap is minor: no statement of data freshness or whether results are cached.

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% for the single `limit` parameter, and the description's "1 to 20" range merely restates the schema. It adds only the ordering semantic ("newest" first), so the schema carries the explanatory load — baseline 3 applies.

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 names the exact protocol and namespace ("Convex Finance (cvx.eth) governance on Snapshot"), the artifact returned ("the newest proposals (1 to 20)"), and enumerates the returned fields (title, state, start/end time, votes, top two choice scores). No sibling tool covers governance, so an agent can select this without ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope statement and strengthened by an explicit exclusion ("vlCVX lock balances and per-wallet voting power are not in this source and are not reported"), which prevents a plausible misuse. However, it never names an alternative source or states a when-to-use condition relative to any sibling, so the guidance stops short of explicit routing.

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

All SiteCheck Crypto & Finance tools Inspect

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

Need Help?