sa-ecosystem-node

DAO payments

dao_payments

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve read-only DAO and Ecosystem Fund payment records, including signatures, amounts, counterparties, and Solscan links; filter by date, wallet, token, and direction to audit outflows.

Instructions

Payment ledger from the cached signature backfill: signature, time, wallet, token, amount, counterparty, and a Solscan link. Defaults to external outflows. Read-only.

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": "dao_payments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No
`from`	No
`mint`	No	ATLAS, USDC, or SOL.
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`wallet`	No	dao_treasury, ecosystem_fund, or one of those two published addresses.
`direction`	No
`includeFees`	No
`allowPartial`	No
`includeInternal`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so 'Read-only' is redundant. The description does add genuine context beyond the annotations: the data comes from a cached signature backfill (implying possible staleness or gaps) and defaults to external outflows. It stops short of explaining what allowPartial or includeInternal actually change in the result.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the data source. The field enumeration earns its place because there is no output schema, though devoting that space to outputs while leaving input semantics unexplained is a structural misallocation.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema and 20% schema coverage, the description covers the return shape reasonably but leaves eight parameters (including boolean flags whose effects are non-obvious) entirely undocumented. The cached-backfill caveat hints at data limitations without saying how they manifest, which is not enough for a tool an agent must call with paging and filtering options.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 20% (just mint and wallet), and the entry list needs compensating for, but the description instead names output fields. Nothing explains what from/to expect (the YYYY-MM pattern is undocumented), what direction 'in'/'out'/'all' means here, or what includeFees, includeInternal, and allowPartial do — the three least self-explanatory parameters.

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 identifies a specific resource (a payment ledger built from a cached signature backfill) and enumerates its fields (signature, time, wallet, token, amount, counterparty, Solscan link), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as dao_treasury_flows or treasury_history, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only guidance is the implicit default 'Defaults to external outflows', which describes a parameter default rather than when to pick this tool. With three closely related treasury/payment siblings in the list, the absence of any when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement leaves the agent to guess.

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