PoolParty Main Stage Airtime

pool_block

Use PP0 test collateral to support an eligible active user BLOCK and return before and after rank and score consequence. Creates a STAKE_ADD transaction intent or explicit local/mock rehearsal state. In Amoy prepare mode, submit the returned wallet transaction and then call finalize_pool_support with the tx hash before treating support as active. Settlement is inspected later through get_pooling_receipt and get_block_economics. Public wallet action. No MCP auth required, but wallet-owner approval or an agent-owned funded wallet signer is required for Amoy transactions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amount`	Yes	USDC test collateral amount, decimal string with up to 6 decimals.
`blockId`	Yes	Database block id for an active user BLOCK in the current PP0 session. Program blocks, operator media, Youtube media, Superblocks, and terminal states are not eligible by default.
`channelSlug`	Yes	Channel slug or alias, e.g. "main", "PP0", or "Main Stage".
`walletAddress`	Yes	Wallet address that is pooling test collateral.
`agentSessionId`	No	Optional caller session id for rate-limit identity and audit context.
`idempotencyKey`	No	Optional client idempotency key stored on the STAKE_ADD transaction intent.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedMay 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: it creates a transaction (STAKE_ADD), requires wallet-owner approval or agent-owned funded wallet for Amoy, and is a public wallet action with no MCP auth. It does not mention rate limits or potential side effects beyond ranking changes, but overall it is fairly transparent.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is several sentences long and front-loads the main purpose, but it includes some procedural details that could be streamlined. It is not overly verbose but could be more concise without losing essential information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description references related tools (finalize_pool_support, get_pooling_receipt, get_block_economics) and outlines a workflow, which helps the agent understand the tool's role. However, it lacks explicit return value structure and uses terms like 'PP0' and 'Amoy' without definition, limiting completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already well-defined. The description adds little beyond the schema, only tying 'test collateral' to the amount parameter. This is adequate but does not significantly enhance understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: using PP0 test collateral to support an eligible active user BLOCK and returning rank/score changes. It also mentions creating a STAKE_ADD transaction intent, which clarifies the action. However, the term 'BLOCK' is capitalized and might be ambiguous without context, and the description is somewhat dense.

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?

The description provides usage context by referencing a multi-step workflow (Amoy prepare mode, finalize_pool_support, settlement via get_pooling_receipt and get_block_economics). However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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

All PoolParty Main Stage Airtime tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?