Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cook4fun-mcp

cook4fun-mcp

by htunaa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

Sell a coin

cook4fun_sell

Sell cook4.fun coins for ETH by specifying an exact amount, percentage, or entire balance. Includes auto-approval and slippage protection.

Instructions

Sell a cook4.fun coin back to ETH. Specify an exact token amount, a percentage, or all. Auto-approves and is slippage-protected.

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_sell"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
allNoSell the entire balance
tokenYesCoin address (0x…) or $TICKER
percentNoPercent of balance to sell
slippageBpsNo
amountTokensNoExact number of tokens to sell

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds value by stating 'Auto-approves and is slippage-protected.' However, it lacks details on failure modes, gas costs, or prerequisites, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Three sentences, each adding essential information: the main action, amount specification methods, and behavioral features. No redundancy or wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers inputs and key behaviors. Missing: return value, error handling, and prerequisites. Still mostly complete for a sell 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 80%, and the description adds meaning by explaining the three amount modes (exact, percent, all) corresponding to parameters. It does not elaborate on 'slippageBps' beyond the general claim of slippage protection.

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 states the action: selling a cook4.fun coin back to ETH. It distinguishes from sibling tools like buy, claim, launch, etc., by specifying the seller's perspective and the target asset (ETH).

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?

The description explains how to specify the amount (exact, percentage, or all) and mentions auto-approve and slippage protection. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context of selling vs. other operations is clear from sibling tool names.

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