Skip to main content
Glama

Choose a launch venue, with the fee disclosed and a config prepared

onchain_agent_route_launch
Read-onlyIdempotent

USE WHEN an agent or a builder is about to launch a token and wants the venue chosen on published facts, with the fee disclosed before anything is signed. Venues covered: Clanker v4, Bankr, Virtuals, Zora creator coins.

RULE ENFORCED: a launch route is a RECOMMENDATION. chosen_by names every fact it was chosen on, each with the venue page it was read from and the date it was read (facts_as_of). A fee schedule says nothing about what a token will do after it launches, and nothing here is a security review or an audit. null is unknown and never zero — a venue that publishes no per-party fee split is unread, not generous.

NON-CUSTODIAL: this tool NEVER deploys, signs, holds keys or moves funds. For the Clanker lane it returns a PREPARED CONFIG in the documented clanker-sdk v4 deploy() shape (the SDK is deliberately not a dependency of this service) which the caller reads and signs itself. Other venues are recommend-only: named, with a stated reason why no config is emitted.

THE FEE: Sato's slice is one entry in the venue's own reward-recipient list — the deployer takes 10000 - bps, Sato takes bps, and the two always total 10000. It is disclosed in fee on EVERY response, including when it is 0, and at 0 no Sato recipient appears in the config at all. A launch that is never signed pays nothing.

Returns (json): { route_id, goal, chain, venue: { slug, name, lane, pool_fee_pct, creator_share_pct, programmable_fee_split, facts: [{ fact, source_url, as_of }], unconfirmed, docs_url }, reason, chosen_by: [{ signal, value, source_field }], checked_at, alternatives: [{ slug, name, behind_on }], fee: { bps, recipient, basis, disclosed }, prepared_deploy, prepared_deploy_unavailable, facts_as_of, caveat, rules }. When no venue documents the chain: { unavailable, tried, supported_chains, supported_goals, checked_at, caveat }.

Example: { chain: "Base", goal: "agent_token", name: "Example Agent", symbol: "EXMPL", deployer: "0x…" }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalYesWhat is being launched. Matched against what each venue's own documentation covers.
nameNoToken name. Required for a prepared deploy config; the caller's to choose, never invented here.
chainYesChain display name as the directory writes it, e.g. 'Base', 'Arbitrum'.
symbolNoToken symbol. Required for a prepared deploy config.
deployerNoThe 0x address that will sign the deploy and hold the creator reward share. Without it no config is prepared — it cannot be inferred.
response_formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' (default) or 'json'.markdown
max_pool_fee_pctNoReject venues whose PUBLISHED pool fee exceeds this percentage. A venue that publishes no fee is not excluded — unknown is not disqualifying.
require_programmable_fee_splitNoOnly venues documenting a programmable third-party recipient split.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: it never signs, holds keys, or moves funds; it returns a prepared clanker-sdk v4 config the caller signs; the fee is disclosed on every response including 0; and null means unknown, never zero. It also sets boundaries (not a security review or audit), which is exactly the behavioral disclosure annotations cannot provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the USE WHEN trigger and organized under scannable headings (RULE ENFORCED, NON-CUSTODIAL, THE FEE, Returns, Example). It is longer than necessary and restates the fee-disclosure rule twice, but nearly every sentence carries actionable information.

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?

Despite having no output schema and eight parameters, the description fully specifies the return shapes (both the success payload and the unavailable-chains fallback), the fee contract, and the caveat. An agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly and interpret the result.

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 all eight parameters are already documented in the schema (including the deployer and max_pool_fee_pct semantics). The description reinforces 'unknown is not disqualifying' for fee filters and provides a concrete example call shape, but adds little parameter meaning beyond what the structured schema already carries, so baseline 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 opening 'USE WHEN an agent or a builder is about to launch a token and wants the venue chosen on published facts' states a specific verb (route/choose a venue) and resource (token launch), and enumerates the covered venues (Clanker v4, Bankr, Virtuals, Zora creator coins). This is unmistakably distinct from siblings like route_swap, route_agent, and get_deploy_spec.

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?

The 'USE WHEN' clause gives a crisp trigger condition, and the NON-CUSTODIAL section clarifies the caller signs the configured deploy themselves. However, no sibling tool is named as an alternative and there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance beyond the implicit 'before anything is signed' framing.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.