token-launcher

ponzu_deploy

Deploy a full token ecosystem with 9 contracts including ERC-20, presale, and NFTs in one transaction. Presale starts instantly after deployment.

Instructions

Deploy a full Ponzu token system — 9 contracts in one transaction: ERC-20 token, presale, launcher, distributor, farm, project, operator, PonzuBottle NFT, and LiquidityCard NFT. Cost: 0.005 ETH creation fee + optional initial buy. Presale opens immediately after deployment.

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": {
      "tokenName": "<tokenName>",
      "tokenSymbol": "<tokenSymbol>",
      "metadata": "<metadata>",
      "imageURI": "<imageURI>"
    },
    "name": "ponzu_deploy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`imageURI`	Yes	Token image URI — IPFS, Arweave, or https://
`metadata`	Yes	Metadata URI — IPFS, Arweave, or https:// pointing to JSON
`tokenName`	Yes	Name of the token (e.g. "My Token")
`tokenSymbol`	Yes	Token ticker symbol (e.g. "MYTKN")
`targetEthRaise`	No	Target ETH raise (default: network minimum — 3 ETH mainnet, 0.1 ETH sepolia)
`initialBuyAmount`	No	Dev buy amount in ETH (default: "0")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses cost and presale timing, but omits details about irreversibility, failure modes, permissions needed, or gas costs beyond the fee.

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?

3 sentences, front-loaded with main action, then cost, then presale detail. 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?

Adequate for a deployment tool with 6 params and no output schema. Could benefit from noting return addresses or deployment confirmation behavior, but sibling tools cover address retrieval.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds default hints for two parameters but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states it deploys a full Ponzu token system with 9 specific contracts, using a specific verb 'Deploy'. Distinct from siblings which focus on pricing, claiming, and other post-launch actions.

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 cost and presale timing context, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. However, as the main deploy tool, usage context is clear enough among siblings.

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

Deploy Server