Skip to main content
Glama

Compare the Uniswap pools for a pair, with the evidence and the gap named

onchain_agent_route_lp
Read-onlyIdempotent

USE WHEN an agent is deciding which Uniswap pool and fee tier to provide liquidity to for a pair Sato Route already quotes, and wants the observed readings rather than an opinion. Returns every v3 pool the weekly LP lane found across the four standard fee tiers, each with its in-range liquidity, the swaps and volume actually counted, the window that count covered, and a fee-revenue proxy.

RULE ENFORCED: a route is a RECOMMENDATION. chosen_by names every field the pick was made on and where each was read. THE LARGEST TERM IS MISSING ON PURPOSE: impermanent loss is not modelled, not approximated and not bounded, and it appears in chosen_by as an explicit null rather than being quietly omitted. A fee-revenue figure here is a PROXY — the pool's published fee rate multiplied by volume we counted, in token0's own units — and is never called revenue, an APR or a yield. Readings are never scaled up from the window covered to a full week.

THE PICK: highest observed fee-revenue proxy per day per unit of in-range liquidity, among pools whose window could be read. When nothing is rankable the answer is chosen: null with a reason per pool, never a low-confidence pick.

COVERAGE: Uniswap v3 on Base and Ethereum, for the pairs the router quotes. Uniswap v4 rows come back null WITH THEIR REASON — v4 is a singleton PoolManager and publishes no per-pair pool id — and null is unknown, never zero. Every non-Uniswap venue is outside the reading entirely.

NON-CUSTODIAL: this tool never signs, holds, moves or provides liquidity, and nothing it returns is advice.

Returns (json): { chain, pair, week, pools: [{ venue, pool, fee_tier_ppm, fee_tier_pct, liquidity, swaps_observed, volume_token0_observed, fee_revenue_proxy, fee_revenue_proxy_per_day, proxy_per_day_per_liquidity, token0, token1, covered_days, window_days, window_complete, method, evidence_tier, caveat, as_of, unknown_reason }], chosen: { pool, venue, fee_tier_ppm, because, chosen_by } | null, unranked, as_of, checked_at, caveat, rules }. When the pair is not collected: { unavailable, supported, checked_at, caveat }.

Example: { chain: "Base", pair: "WETH-USDC" }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pairYesThe pair, either way round: 'WETH-USDC', 'usdc/weth', 'WBTC_WETH'. Only the pairs Sato Route quotes are collected.
chainYesChain the pool is on. Collected: Base, Ethereum. Anything else answers `unavailable` with the covered list — unknown, never an empty result presented as none.
response_formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' (default) or 'json'.markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover the read-only/idempotent/open-world profile, yet the description adds substantial behavior: the selection rule (highest proxy per day per in-range liquidity), its deliberate omission of impermanent loss, the proxy-not-yield semantics, no up-scaling from window to week, v4 returning null-with-reason, and explicit non-custodial guarantees. This is far beyond what the structured fields convey.

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?

Long and dense but front-loaded (USE WHEN first) and organized under explicit caps headers (RULE ENFORCED, THE PICK, COVERAGE, NON-CUSTODIAL). Some repetition (null/unknown semantics restated) costs a point, but for a semantics-heavy tool most sentences carry weight.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does — enumerating the pools array fields, the chosen object shape, unranked, and the unavailable variant. Combined with the pick logic and coverage limits, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies that pair accepts either ordering or separator, that only Sato-Route-quoted pairs are collected, and that non-Base/Ethereum chains return an 'unavailable' list rather than an empty success. That contextual elaboration exceeds the schema text.

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+resource+scope: comparing Uniswap v3 pools and fee tiers for liquidity provision on a quoted pair. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like onchain_agent_route_swap (swaps) and onchain_agent_route_launch, and the title reinforces the evidence-and-gap framing.

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 an explicit triggering condition (deciding which pool/fee tier to LP into for a quoted pair) and the COVERAGE section defines when the answer is unavailable or null. However, it never names a sibling alternative (e.g., route_swap) or states when NOT to reach for this tool, so routing vs. alternatives is left to inference.

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.