Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

IFSO

by io.github.ifsodev
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

IFSO build and contracts

ifso_version
Read-onlyIdempotent

Which IFSO build is running, the chain id (Robinhood Chain mainnet is 4663), the address of every contract it uses (payments, conditions, outcome resolver, USDG) and the fee constants in base units and USDG. The same answer as GET /v1/version. Check these addresses before approving anything in a wallet.

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": "ifso_version"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety bar is met structurally. The description adds real context on top: the specific chain id 4663, the equivalence to GET /v1/version, the units of the fee constants (base units and USDG), and a verification recommendation before wallet approvals.

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 what the caller actually receives, followed by the endpoint equivalence and the verification advice. One sentence is dense with parenthetical enumeration but every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must enumerate return values and it does: build, chain id, contract addresses by role, and fee constants with units. It stops short of describing the response shape or address formatting, a small gap for a tool whose whole job is returning structured lookup 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-argument tool applies. No misleading hints about inputs are given.

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?

States a concrete resource set: running build, chain id (4663), addresses of every contract (payments, conditions, outcome resolver, USDG), and fee constants. That is unmistakably distinct from the sibling tools, which all deal with individual payments, conditions, or quotes, so an agent can route on the name alone.

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?

Provides a clear trigger: 'Check these addresses before approving anything in a wallet', which tells the agent when this is the right call in a safety-critical flow. It does not mention the nearest alternative for fee data (ifso_quote_fees) or clarify that this reports configured constants rather than a per-payment quote, which would have made it a 5.

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

All IFSO 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