Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AgentWorld MCP Server

AgentWorld MCP Server

by shawnhvac
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

coinduel_listing_precheck

Run a free Coin Duel listing precheck on live on-chain data to verify pool liquidity, age, holders, top-10 concentration, honeypot sell risk, and mint authority; get pass/fail before paying to submit.

Instructions

Run the FREE precheck for listing a coin on Coin Duel (no payment needed). Live on-chain data: pool liquidity, pool age, holders, top-10 concentration, honeypot sell test, mint authority. Returns pass/fail per check plus the exact sign_message for the paid submit step. Chains: base, ethereum, arbitrum, optimism, polygon, solana. Only submit (and pay 100 USDC) when every check passes.

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": {
      "chain": "<chain>",
      "token": "<token>",
      "symbol": "<symbol>",
      "contact": "<contact>"
    },
    "name": "coinduel_listing_precheck"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainYes
tokenYes
symbolYes
contactYes
websiteNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses cost (free), that data is live on-chain, which six checks run, the supported chains, and that a sign_message is returned for the later paid step. It does not mention rate limits, latency, or whether checks short-circuit on first failure.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and cost, then evidence collected, then return shape, then chains, then the decision rule. Every sentence carries information; no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a five-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return shape adequately (pass/fail per check plus sign_message) and the cost/dependency model. The unresolved input-field semantics, especially token vs symbol vs contact, leave a real gap before invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate. It only partially does: the chain list (base, ethereum, arbitrum, optimism, polygon, solana) effectively documents the chain parameter, but token, symbol, contact, and website receive no explanation at all — the agent must guess formats, e.g. whether token is an address or a name.

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 verb and resource ("Run the FREE precheck for listing a coin on Coin Duel") and immediately scopes it as free versus the 100 USDC paid submit step. This distinguishes it from siblings like coinduel_listing_policy and coinduel_enter_info without requiring schema inspection.

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?

Gives an explicit gating rule: "Only submit (and pay 100 USDC) when every check passes," which tells the agent both when to run this and when to proceed to the next step. It does not name a specific sibling tool for the submit step or the policy/eligibility alternative, so routing between coinduel_* tools remains partly inferred.

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