Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cook4fun-mcp

cook4fun-mcp

by htunaa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

Claim rewards

cook4fun_claim

Claim your wallet's share of accrued fees from reward-sharing coins on cook4.fun.

Instructions

Claim the wallet's share of a reward-sharing coin's accrued fees.

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": {
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "cook4fun_claim"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenYesCoin address (0x…) or $TICKER

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description offers only minimal behavioral info (claiming fees). Missing details on whether the call is a write operation, triggers transactions, requires wallet balance, or has side effects like gas fees.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key action and resource. No wasted words; the entire description is functional and to the point.

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?

Despite missing annotations and some behavioral details, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter for a simple claim operation. It could mention expected outcomes or return values, but the lack of output schema reduces burden. Still fairly complete given tool simplicity.

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% for the single required parameter (token), and the schema description adequately defines it. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so the score is at baseline.

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?

The description clearly specifies the action ('claim'), the resource ('wallet's share of a reward-sharing coin's accrued fees'), and distinguishes from sibling tools (buy, sell, launch, list_coins, wallet) by focusing on claiming rewards rather than purchasing, selling, or managing.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like buying or selling. No prerequisites, context, or conditions for claiming are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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