dexe-mcp

User staking + delegation power across VoteTypes

dexe_vote_user_power

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads GovUserKeeper token and NFT balances across all VoteTypes in one multicall, returning wallet balances and deposited voting power per user.

Instructions

Read-only. Reads tokenBalance and nftBalance on GovUserKeeper for every VoteType (Personal/Micropool/Delegated/Treasury) in one multicall. tokenBalance includes the un-deposited wallet balance; deposited power = tokenBalance - tokenOwned.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`user`	Yes	User wallet address
`chainId`	No	Chain to read from: 56 mainnet, 97 testnet. Needs an RPC for it. Default: the configured chain.
`govPool`	Yes	GovPool contract address

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`user`	Yes
`power`	Yes
`govPool`	Yes
`userKeeper`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.37.1Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the single-multicall batching across all VoteTypes and explains that `tokenBalance` includes un-deposited wallet balance with deposited power derived as tokenBalance minus tokenOwned. It does not mention RPC/chain failure modes, but for a read tool this is solid added context.

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 short sentences with the read-only constraint and the multicall scope front-loaded, followed by the one non-obvious semantic detail. Nothing is padded, though the tokenBalance/deposited-power sentence is dense and could be split for faster scanning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description still covers the key interpretive point: which VoteTypes are returned and what tokenBalance encompasses. For a three-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only the absence of guidance on choosing it over sibling reads leaves a gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so `govPool`, `user`, and `chainId` are already documented in the schema, including the chain/RPC note. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own and does not explain how the VoteType dimension relates to the inputs. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it reads `tokenBalance` and `nftBalance` on GovUserKeeper across all four VoteTypes in a single multicall. That scope is precise enough that an agent knows it is a read-only power lookup rather than a delegation map or DAO info call. It stops short of naming a sibling it replaces, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named even though `dexe_read_delegation_map` and `dexe_dao_info` sit in the same space. The 'Read-only' prefix implies an informational use, but the agent must infer the routing decision entirely on its own.

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

Deploy Server