Skip to main content
Glama

EmblemAI AgentWallet

by ai.emblemvault

Polygon: polygonSwapQuote

polygonSwapQuote
Read-onlyIdempotent

Quote an exact-input Polygon swap. The sellAmount may be sell-token units, a USD budget such as '$5', or 'max'. Returns a normalized conditionalOrderHandoff for explicit entry or exit orders.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sellAmountYesHow much of the SELL token to spend. Use a decimal string for sell-token units (e.g. '0.01' means 0.01 ETH), '$5' or '5 usd' for a USD budget, or 'max'. Never convert a user's USD budget yourself.
buyTokenAddressNoPolygon address of the token being received (BUY token)
sellTokenAddressNoPolygon address of the token being spent (SELL token)

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description adds value by mentioning the return format ('normalized conditionalOrderHandoff') and the flexible sellAmount formats. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is three concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose. The second sentence on sellAmount somewhat duplicates schema info, but it's brief and reinforces key behavior. Overall, it's appropriately sized with minimal waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description attempts to explain the return value ('conditionalOrderHandoff') but does so ambiguously. While the tool is simple and annotations are strong, the return format is unclear, leaving the agent without enough detail to fully understand the output.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, including detailed sellAmount semantics. The tool description repeats some of this but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Quote an exact-input Polygon swap.' It distinguishes itself from sibling swap tools by specifying the Polygon chain and the exact-input nature, making the purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The usage is implied by the description: it is for quoting Polygon swaps. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus other chain-specific swap quotes (e.g., baseSwapQuote, ethSwapQuote) or when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned.

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

All EmblemAI AgentWallet toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

With 113 tools spanning many chains and asset classes, there is substantial overlap. For example, listPositions and getAllPositions appear to serve the same function, and there are many balance, token discovery, and collection data tools that differ mostly by chain or protocol, making misselection likely.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: most tools use camelCase with a verb (baseGetBalances, ethSwapQuote), but some use underscores (nansen_defi_portfolio), others are just bare nouns (wallet, rugcheck), and there are irregularities like solanaBalances instead of solanaGetBalances, plus hederaTokensSwapQuote vs. baseSwapQuote.

Tool Count1/5

The server exposes 113 tools, far beyond the typical well-scoped set. This is an extreme mismatch with the apparent purpose of a wallet/swap server, making discovery and selection difficult for agents.

Completeness2/5

While the server offers extensive read-only data (balances, market data, NFTs, positions), it lacks core write operations: there is no actual swap execution or token transfer tool, and the referenced emblemCreateVault tool is missing. These are significant gaps that will prevent agents from completing common wallet actions.

Resources