Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dexe-mcp

dexe-mcp

by edward-arinin-web-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Claim all OTC purchases

dexe_otc_buyer_claim_all
Destructive

Claims all claimable OTC token-sale tiers for a buyer, skips vested-only tiers blocked by the pool, and supports dryRun previews of claim payloads.

Instructions

Broadcasts when a signer is configured. Reads getUserViews(user, tierIds) and sends claim for tiers with claimableAmount > 0. Tiers whose only balance is the VESTED leg are reported under vestingBlocked and NOT sent — vestingWithdraw is refused by the pool's firewall (upstream defect F15); includeVesting: true tries anyway.

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": {
      "tokenSaleProposal": "<tokenSaleProposal>",
      "tierIds": "<tierIds>"
    },
    "name": "dexe_otc_buyer_claim_all"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userNoClaimer address; defaults to the configured signer.
dryRunNoIf true, return ordered TxPayloads even when a signer is loaded.
chainIdNoTarget chain id. Defaults to the MCP's default chain.
tierIdsYesTier ids to sweep, decimal strings.
signerKeyNoKeyring signer: omit = primary key; 'agent<n>' or address = a DEXE_AGENT_PK_* key.
includeVestingNoAttempt `vestingWithdraw` too; it reverts on every current pool (upstream F15).
tokenSaleProposalYesTokenSaleProposal helper address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.37.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations only say readOnly=false/destructive=true; the description adds the materially useful facts that it broadcasts only when a signer is configured, that `dryRun` yields TxPayloads instead, and that vesting withdrawal reverts on every current pool due to upstream defect F15. That is real behavior beyond the structured fields, though permissions, gas implications, and failure handling for non-vesting reverts are left unstated.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the write semantics and then the vesting caveat that most affects the caller's decision. The defect reference (F15, pool firewall) is dense but earns its place by explaining why `vestingBlocked` exists; the sentence could be split for readability.

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 7-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description does the important work of describing one return field (`vestingBlocked`) and the dry-run payload shape. Remaining gaps — what a successful broadcast returns, whether partial failures across tiers are possible — are modest but real for a destructive multi-tier sweep.

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 is 3. The description does add interpretation for `includeVesting` ('tries anyway' despite the F15 revert) and confirms how `user` and `tierIds` feed `getUserViews`, but it adds nothing for `chainId`, `signerKey`, `dryRun` beyond what the schema already documents.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a concrete verb and resource ('sends `claim` for tiers with `claimableAmount > 0`') and even describes the read-then-write mechanics via `getUserViews(user, tierIds)`, which makes it unmistakable against the read-only `dexe_otc_buyer_status` and the purchase sibling. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 (sweep all claimable tiers at once, use `dryRun` to preview) but never spelled out as a when-to-use rule, and no alternative route is named for the vesting case. The vesting exclusion is the closest thing to guidance — it tells the agent this tool will not clear a vested-only tier — but that is framed as an internal limitation rather than a routing decision.

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