Vitruveo Chain Tools MCP

reconcile supply

reconcile_supply

Read-only

Reconcile token supply by reading cap, outstanding, and reserved getters at one block to verify supply arithmetic, not paid-sales totals.

Instructions

Read caller-selected cap/outstanding/reserved getters at one block; never a paid-sales total.

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": {
      "address": "<address>",
      "capFunction": "<capFunction>",
      "outstandingFunction": "<outstandingFunction>",
      "reservedFunction": "<reservedFunction>"
    },
    "name": "reconcile_supply"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`address`	Yes
`blockNumber`	No	latest
`capFunction`	Yes
`reservedFunction`	Yes
`outstandingFunction`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0-rc.1Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: all three values are read at one block (a consistent snapshot) and the tool deliberately does not report a paid-sales total, warning against misinterpreting the output. It says nothing about failure modes, e.g. whether a bad function name reverts or returns an error.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the 'one block' snapshot constraint is stated early. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness is what leaves the parameter and usage gaps unfilled.

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 five-parameter, four-required tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition is thin. An agent is left guessing the function-string format and the shape of the returned values (ordered triple? named fields?), which are exactly the things the description would need to supply here.

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 0% across five parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. It maps loosely onto capFunction/outstandingFunction/reservedFunction and implies blockNumber, but never states what format the function strings take (signature, selector, or name), why they are caller-supplied rather than fixed, or what 'address' refers to.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a read of three named getter categories (cap/outstanding/reserved) at a single block, which is more than a restatement of the name. However, the phrasing is dense jargon ('cap/outstanding/reserved getters', 'paid-sales total') and never says what domain these belong to (token supply? vesting?), nor does it distinguish the tool from siblings like read_contract or token_info.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The clause 'never a paid-sales total' excludes a particular result value, not a competing tool, so an agent still cannot infer why it would pick this over read_contract or address_overview.

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

Deploy Server