pons-mcp

pons_fee_balances

Check claimable fee balances in the shared fee escrow for an address, including per-token balances and buyback vault vesting state, to determine available claims.

Instructions

Claimable fee balances in the shared PonsV2FeeEscrow for an address (native ETH always; per-token when tokenAddress is given), plus buyback-vault vesting state for a token (totalLocked, vested, releasable, terms). Read-only.

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": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "pons_fee_balances"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	Recipient address to check
`tokenAddress`	No	Optional token: adds escrow token balance + buyback vesting state

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It states 'Read-only' and clarifies that native ETH is always returned while token data is conditional. However, it doesn't disclose behavior like zero-balance handling, network specificity, or potential reverts. The description adds the read-only hint but not much beyond that.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key conditional behavior. It is efficient and not padded, though slightly dense with multiple clauses. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values. It does name vesting state fields (totalLocked, vested, releasable, terms) but leaves the fee balance return shape unspecified. For a read-only balance tool, an agent likely needs field names for the fee balances, which are missing. Partially complete.

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%, and the schema already documents both parameters: 'address' as recipient to check and 'tokenAddress' as optional token adding escrow balance and vesting state. The description repeats this without adding new semantics, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 resource (shared PonsV2FeeEscrow) and the precise outputs: claimable fee balances (native ETH always, per-token when tokenAddress is given) plus buyback-vault vesting state (totalLocked, vested, releasable, terms). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that cover protocol overview, token info, launches, etc. Verb is implicit but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Implies usage: check claimable fees for an address, optionally with a token to get token-specific balances and vesting state. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are named, but the description is distinct enough among siblings that an agent would select it when needing fee/vesting data. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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