@thryx/mcp-server

thryx_protocol_params

Fetch live protocol parameters: fee basis points, creator fee split, graduation threshold, ETH/THRYX exchange rate, and totals for launched and graduated tokens.

Instructions

Live protocol params: fee in basis points, creator fee split, graduation threshold, ETH/THRYX exchange rate, total launched, total graduated. Pulled from /api/protocol-params.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "thryx_protocol_params"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.5.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation by stating 'Live protocol params' and 'Pulled from /api/protocol-params', providing the data source and freshness. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error behavior, or authentication requirements, which is a moderate gap for a simple getter.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key phrase 'Live protocol params' and efficiently lists specific fields and the API source. Every piece of information is relevant, and there is no fluff.

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 simple, parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns and where it pulls data from. Missing details like response format or authentication are not critical for this context, but the description could have been more explicit.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by enumerating the output fields (fee, creator fee split, graduation threshold, etc.), helping the agent understand the tool's return content without needing parameter details.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving live protocol parameters, listing specific fields like fee, creator fee split, and graduation threshold. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on protocol-level data, but lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'retrieve', relying on the tool name and context.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like thryx_info or thryx_stats_v2. There are no explicit 'use this when' instructions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the resource name.

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