Skip to main content
Glama
tanmay4l

Futarchy MCP Server

by tanmay4l

buyInPassMarket

Purchase tokens in a proposal's pass market to support its implementation on the Futarchy protocol.

Instructions

Buy tokens in the pass market for a proposal

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
proposalIdYesThe ID of the proposal to trade in
amountYesAmount to buy
userYesUser's public key

Implementation Reference

  • Registration of the MCP 'buyInPassMarket' tool, including input schema (Zod) and handler function that delegates to the API client.
    server.tool(
      "buyInPassMarket",
      "Buy tokens in the pass market for a proposal",
      {
        proposalId: z.string().describe("The ID of the proposal to trade in"),
        amount: z.number().describe("Amount to buy"),
        user: z.string().describe("User's public key"),
      },
      async ({ proposalId, amount, user }) => {
        try {
          const response = await apiClient.buyInPassMarket(proposalId, amount, user);
          
          if (!response.success) {
            return {
              content: [
                {
                  type: "text" as const,
                  text: response.error || 'Unknown error',
                },
              ],
              isError: true,
            };
          }
          
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text" as const,
                text: JSON.stringify(response.data, null, 2),
              },
            ],
          };
        } catch (error: any) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text" as const,
                text: `Error buying in pass market: ${error.message || 'Unknown error'}`,
              },
            ],
            isError: true,
          };
        }
      }
    );
  • The handler function for the 'buyInPassMarket' tool. It calls the FutarchyApiClient's buyInPassMarket method and formats the response as MCP content.
    async ({ proposalId, amount, user }) => {
      try {
        const response = await apiClient.buyInPassMarket(proposalId, amount, user);
        
        if (!response.success) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text" as const,
                text: response.error || 'Unknown error',
              },
            ],
            isError: true,
          };
        }
        
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text" as const,
              text: JSON.stringify(response.data, null, 2),
            },
          ],
        };
      } catch (error: any) {
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text" as const,
              text: `Error buying in pass market: ${error.message || 'Unknown error'}`,
            },
          ],
          isError: true,
        };
      }
    }
  • Zod input schema defining parameters for the 'buyInPassMarket' tool: proposalId (string), amount (number), user (public key string).
    {
      proposalId: z.string().describe("The ID of the proposal to trade in"),
      amount: z.number().describe("Amount to buy"),
      user: z.string().describe("User's public key"),
    },
  • Helper method in FutarchyApiClient that performs the actual HTTP POST request to the backend endpoint /proposals/{proposalId}/buy-pass to execute the buy operation.
    async buyInPassMarket(proposalId: string, amount: number, userPublicKey: string): Promise<Response> {
      try {
        const response = await fetch(`${this.baseUrl}/proposals/${proposalId}/buy-pass`, {
          method: 'POST',
          headers: {
            'Content-Type': 'application/json',
          },
          body: JSON.stringify({
            amount,
            user: userPublicKey
          })
        });
    
        if (!response.ok) {
          throw new Error(`HTTP error! Status: ${response.status}`);
        }
        const data = await response.json();
        
        return {
          success: true,
          data: data
        };
      } catch (error: any) {
        return {
          success: false,
          error: error.message || 'Failed to buy in pass market'
        };
      }
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Buy tokens' which implies a transactional/mutative operation, but fails to describe critical aspects like authentication needs, financial implications (e.g., token costs), rate limits, or what happens upon execution (e.g., token transfer confirmation). This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of a financial transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral details like side effects (e.g., token balance changes). For a tool involving token purchases, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying 'proposalId' identifies the proposal and 'amount' specifies purchase quantity. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 states the action ('Buy tokens') and target resource ('in the pass market for a proposal'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sellInPassMarket' or 'buyInFailMarket', which would require mentioning the specific market type or contrasting actions.

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 'sellInPassMarket' or 'buyInFailMarket'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., proposal status) or scenarios where buying in the pass market is appropriate, offering only a basic statement of function.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tanmay4l/FutarchyMCPServer'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server