pons-mcp

pons_pending_fee_change

Retrieve a token's pending creator fee recipient, proposed timestamps, and whether the change is timelocked, executable, or expired.

Instructions

Read the factory's pendingCreatorFeeRecipient for a token: proposed recipient, proposed/executable timestamps, and window status (timelocked / executable / expired) using the live timelock and execution-window constants.

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": {
      "tokenAddress": "<tokenAddress>"
    },
    "name": "pons_pending_fee_change"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tokenAddress`	Yes	Launched token address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the operation is a read ('Read the factory's...'), discloses the specific data returned, and mentions the use of live timelock and execution-window constants for status computation, which is useful transparency. It does not discuss error cases or side effects, but as a read operation, that is acceptable.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists outputs and method. No fluff.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description is complete for a simple one-parameter read tool: it specifies input, output fields, and how the status is computed. Even without an output schema, an agent knows what to expect. The only minor omission is behavior when no pending change exists, but that is an edge case.

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%—`tokenAddress` is described as 'Launched token address'. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies the exact resource (`factory's pendingCreatorFeeRecipient` for a token), then enumerates the returned fields. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like `pons_fee_balances` or `pons_get_token`.

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?

It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the focused purpose of reading a pending fee change is clear from the description. An agent can infer this is the tool to check the status of a scheduled creator fee change, distinct from fee balance reads.

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