Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dexe-mcp

dexe-mcp

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

List a DAO's token sale tiers

dexe_read_token_sales
Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads a DAO's on-chain TokenSaleProposal tiers, returning each tier's totalSold and status (upcoming, active, ended, off) computed from the current block timestamp.

Instructions

Read-only. Reads latestTierId() then getTierViews(0, latestTierId) on the DAO's TokenSaleProposal: tiers with totalSold and status (upcoming/active/ended/off) computed from the current block timestamp and the tier's on-chain isOff flag. On-chain only — any chain with an RPC; the reply echoes the resolved chainId. tokenSaleProposal defaults to the address this install's local state records for the DAO; otherwise it is required.

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": {
      "govPool": "<govPool>"
    },
    "name": "dexe_read_token_sales"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainIdNoChain to read from: 56 mainnet, 97 testnet. Needs an RPC for it. Default: the configured chain.
govPoolYesGovPool address
tokenSaleProposalNoTokenSaleProposal helper address. Omit when the local state records it; otherwise dexe_dao_predict_addresses or the deploy receipt.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.37.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses the two-step on-chain call sequence, that status is derived from block timestamp plus the tier's isOff flag, that only chains with an RPC work, and that the reply echoes the resolved chainId. It adds no guidance on failure modes, empty tier lists, or result volume, which keeps it just under a top score.

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?

The safety posture ('Read-only.') is front-loaded, then source contract, then derived semantics, then chain scope, then the parameter default — a logical order with little padding. It is dense and slightly run-on, mixing contract calls and status enumeration into single sentences, but no sentence is expendable.

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 3-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers what is read, where it comes from, how statuses are computed, what is echoed back, and the tokenSaleProposal fallback — enough for an agent to call it correctly. Missing only edge-case behavior (no tiers deployed, missing RPC) for a fully complete picture.

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 `chainId`, `govPool` and `tokenSaleProposal` are already documented in the input schema; the description's note about the tokenSaleProposal default largely restates the schema text. The one genuine addition is that the resolved chainId is echoed back, which helps verify the read. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter detail.

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 verb and resource ('List a DAO's token sale tiers') and pins the exact on-chain source: `latestTierId()` then `getTierViews(0, latestTierId)` on TokenSaleProposal. The returned fields (`totalSold`, `upcoming`/`active`/`ended`/`off`) make clear this is tier enumeration, distinguishable from a single position read or an OTC sale list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear context for use — read tier state for a DAO's TokenSaleProposal, with the address default resolved from install-local state and an explicit fallback source (`dexe_dao_predict_addresses` or the deploy receipt) when it isn't recorded. It stops short of naming a sibling tool or stating when NOT to use this (e.g. use the position reader for a buyer's allocations), so no exclusion is offered.

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