Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
token-launcher

token-launcher

by PonzuTech
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ponzu_calc_pricing

Calculate the linear pricing curve for a Ponzu presale by specifying the target ETH raise, returning start and end prices with encoded pricing data.

Instructions

Calculate the linear pricing curve for a Ponzu presale given a target ETH raise. Returns start price, end price (10x start), and encoded pricing data. Formula: 690,000 tokens sold on a linear curve. Minimum raise: 3 ETH mainnet, 0.1 ETH sepolia.

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": {
      "targetEthRaise": "<targetEthRaise>"
    },
    "name": "ponzu_calc_pricing"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetEthRaiseYesTarget ETH raise amount (e.g. "5" for 5 ETH)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals the formula (690,000 tokens on linear curve), outputs (start price, end price, encoded data), and constraints (minimum raise per network). This is good transparency, though side effects (likely read-only) are not stated.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and outputs. No redundant or fluff content.

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?

Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, outputs, formula, and constraints. It is nearly complete, though it could mention return type (e.g., JSON) more explicitly.

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 parameter targetEthRaise, and the tool description mentions it in the same context. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already fully documents the parameter; the description adds no new semantics beyond the example format.

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 explicitly states the tool calculates a linear pricing curve for a Ponzu presale given a target ETH raise, with specific outputs (start price, end price at 10x, encoded data). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle claiming, deploying, swapping, etc.

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 gives constraints (min raises, formula) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ponzu_deploy or ponzu_presale_buy. Usage context is implied but not made explicit.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools