dexe-mcp

Check whether an address is a DeXe GovPool

dexe_dao_registry_lookup

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks whether a given address is a registered DeXe DAO GovPool by querying PoolRegistry.isGovPool on a chosen BNB Chain, helping verify DAO addresses before governance actions.

Instructions

Read-only. Calls PoolRegistry.isGovPool(address) — true when the address is a registered DeXe DAO GovPool.

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": "dexe_dao_registry_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`address`	No	Candidate GovPool address
`chainId`	No	Chain to read from: 56 mainnet, 97 testnet. Needs an RPC for it. Default: the configured chain.
`govPool`	No	Alias for `address` — the name every other DAO tool uses

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes
`chainId`	Yes
`isGovPool`	Yes
`poolRegistry`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.37.1Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the leading 'Read-only.' sentence adds nothing. The genuine added value is naming the on-chain call and the truth condition, but it omits behavior when the address is unknown or the chain is unavailable (false versus revert) and says nothing about RPC dependency beyond what the schema already notes.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded and free of filler; the leading 'Read-only.' is the only phrase that duplicates structured data. Nothing else could be trimmed without losing the contract-level detail.

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 single-predicate lookup with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers what is needed to call it correctly. The remaining gaps are the alias/omitted-argument edge cases and the unregistered-address behavior, both of which are minor for a tool this simple.

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 baseline applies and the description only restates the call signature `isGovPool(address)`. It misses the one ambiguity worth resolving: `address` and `govPool` are two optional spellings of the same value with no stated precedence and no required parameter, so the behavior when both or neither are supplied stays unclear.

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?

States a specific predicate with exact semantics: it calls `PoolRegistry.isGovPool(address)` and returns true for a registered DeXe DAO GovPool. That verb-plus-resource framing is precise enough to separate it from listing tools such as dexe_read_dao_list or lookup helpers like dexe_dao_predict_addresses, without needing to name a sibling.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is an existence check to run before treating an address as a DAO, but the description never says when to prefer it over dexe_dao_info or dexe_dao_predict_addresses, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites. Acceptable but leaves routing to inference.

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

Deploy Server