Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
web3-agent

web3-agent

by RafaCoelho33
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

scan_dao_proposals

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetches recent Snapshot DAO proposals and extracts on-chain target addresses and calldata to detect hostile takeover payloads, with optional offline curated data.

Instructions

Stage 1 Free ($0.00) governance scanner that fetches up to limit (1-20) recent Snapshot DAO proposals for space_id (e.g. arbitrumfoundation.eth, aavedao.eth, ens.eth) and extracts on-chain target addresses and calldata to spot hostile takeover payloads. Queries Snapshot GraphQL API by default, or falls back to deterministic offline fixtures when use_curated_offline=true or network fails. Returns JSON with space_id, proposals_count, proposals (id, title, target_address, calldata, value_wei, state), and recommendation.

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": "scan_dao_proposals"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of proposals to fetch (default: 3)
space_idNoSnapshot DAO space ENS identifier (e.g., 'arbitrumfoundation.eth', 'aavedao.eth', 'ens.eth')arbitrumfoundation.eth
use_curated_offlineNoIf true, returns verified realistic offline curated proposals without outbound network calls

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toolNo
stageNo
cost_usdNo
space_idYes
proposalsYes
recommendationNo
proposals_countYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.1
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "cost_usd": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "proposals": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "proposals_count": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "recommendation": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "space_id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "stage": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "space_id",
+    "proposals_count",
+    "proposals"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the default Snapshot GraphQL call, deterministic offline fixtures on use_curated_offline=true or network failure, and the 1-20 limit range that the schema does not enforce. The one gap is that neither tier/pricing semantics ("Stage 1 Free") nor rate limiting on the public API is explained.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the identity and purpose before parameters and fallback behavior. Slight waste in enumerating the returned JSON fields, which duplicates the existing output schema.

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?

For a three-optional-parameter, read-only scanner with an output schema, the description covers purpose, data source, offline fallback, and limit bounds, which is enough to call it correctly. The redundant return-value enumeration and the unexplained "Stage 1" tiering are the only loose ends.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is already 100%, so 3 is the baseline; the description earns more by adding the 1-20 bounds on limit that the schema omits and by restating concrete space_id examples in context. It also ties use_curated_offline to the fallback condition, clarifying that the flag forces the offline path rather than merely preferring it.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("fetches ... recent Snapshot DAO proposals") and adds the downstream activity ("extracts on-chain target addresses and calldata to spot hostile takeover payloads"), so an agent knows both the input domain and the analytic goal. It is clearly distinct from siblings such as check_token_honeypot or deep_semantic_audit.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: "Stage 1 Free" hints at a staged pipeline and the hostile-takeover framing suggests when to reach for it, but there is no explicit "use this when / do not use this when" or any named alternative. The GraphQL-vs-offline fallback sentence describes execution behavior more than selection guidance.

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