Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
token-launcher

token-launcher

by PonzuTech
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ponzu_claim_eth

Claim ETH rewards from a Ponzu presale using a presale address and token ID. Repeatable as more ETH enters from the Distributor.

Instructions

Claim ETH rewards from a Ponzu presale. Repeatable — can be called multiple times as more ETH flows into the presale from the Distributor.

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": {
      "presaleAddress": "<presaleAddress>",
      "tokenId": "<tokenId>"
    },
    "name": "ponzu_claim_eth"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenIdYesPonzuBottle NFT token ID
presaleAddressYesPresale contract address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses repeatability and the source of ETH (Distributor), but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or error states.

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 extremely concise: one sentence with a clarifying second sentence. No wasted words.

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 explains the tool's repeatable nature but does not describe the return value or provide context on prerequisites like ownership of the token. Given no output schema, more detail would help.

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%, so the description need not repeat parameter info. It adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the verb 'Claim' and the resource 'ETH rewards from a Ponzu presale'. It distinguishes from siblings like ponzu_claim_tokens by specifying ETH rewards, and the repeatability note adds specificity.

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?

The description notes repeatability, implying it can be called multiple times as rewards accumulate. It does not explicitly state when to avoid or provide alternatives, but the context is helpful.

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