dexe-mcp

Token sale position for a wallet

dexe_read_token_sale_position

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a buyer's token sale position across chosen tiers: purchasable status, claimable amount, vesting withdrawable, lockup ETA, total sold, and whitelist proof for accurate participation checks.

Instructions

Read-only. Tier params + user state across N tiers: purchasable status, claimable amount, vesting withdrawable, lockup ETA, totalSold, merkle root. whitelists adds the user's proof, making canParticipate accurate for gated tiers.

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>",
      "user": "<user>"
    },
    "name": "dexe_read_token_sale_position"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`user`	Yes	Buyer address to report state for.
`chainId`	No	Chain to read from: 56 mainnet, 97 testnet. Needs an RPC for it. Default: the configured chain.
`tierIds`	Yes	Tier ids to report on, decimal strings (1 to 50).
`whitelists`	No	Optional per-tier whitelist (for MerkleWhitelist proof generation).
`tokenSaleProposal`	Yes	TokenSaleProposal helper address

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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so 'Read-only' adds nothing structured fields don't. The genuine value-add is the causal note that whitelist proofs are what make `canParticipate` accurate for gated tiers; nothing is said about RPC requirements or failure behavior for unconfigured chains.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the read-only nature is front-loaded, followed by the field inventory, then the one parameter nuance that changes results. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and the tier fan-out, which is what an agent needs to trust the result. It leaves chain/RPC selection to the schema and doesn't mention failure modes for absent whitelists, a small gap for a 5-parameter read tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of `whitelists` (Merkle proof generation) and its effect on a returned field rather than restating its type. This makes the optional parameter's tradeoff legible without opening the schema.

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?

The description uses a specific read verb and enumerates exactly what the position report contains (purchasable status, claimable amount, vesting withdrawable, lockup ETA, totalSold, merkle root) across N tiers, so an agent knows the payload shape. It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby read tools like dexe_read_token_sales, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against sibling tools is given. The one conditional hint is embedded: supplying `whitelists` makes `canParticipate` accurate for gated tiers, which tells the agent when the extra parameter matters, but overall usage is only implied.

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

Deploy Server