Ava Genesis Agent API
Server Details
Deploy ERC-20 tokens on Ethereum, Base, BNB Chain, Polygon, and Sepolia testnet via one MCP tool call. Returns a deployed contract address. $10 flat fee per mainnet deployment — same as human users. Free on Sepolia testnet. Requires an API key from https://avagenesis.com/api/agents/keys
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.5/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose. The two deployment tools (ava_create_token_intent and ava_deploy_token) are well-differentiated by network and wallet requirements, and related tools like ava_confirm_deployment and ava_get_deployment_status serve different steps in the workflow.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'ava_verb_noun' with descriptive verbs (create, deploy, confirm, get, list, simulate) and nouns, all in snake_case. No mixing of conventions.
With 9 tools covering the full deployment lifecycle (API key creation, simulation, template browsing, gas prices, two deployment methods, status polling, confirmation, and token listing), the count is well-scoped and each tool earns its place.
The tool set covers the complete workflow from bootstrap to deployment and verification. Simulation, gas estimation, testnet/mainnet deployment, status polling, and token listing are all included, with no obvious gaps for the server's stated purpose of token deployment.
Available Tools
9 toolsava_confirm_deploymentAInspect
After signing and broadcasting the transaction returned by ava_create_token_intent, submit the txHash here to resolve the deployed contract address. The server monitors the chain for the transaction receipt and updates the intent status. Returns: status ('deploying' | 'deployed' | 'failed'), contractAddress when confirmed, explorerUrl, and tokenUrl. If status is still 'deploying', poll ava_get_deployment_status every 5-10 seconds until resolved. Possible failures: tx reverted (insufficient fee or gas), wrong chain, txHash already used.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | Yes | Your Ava Genesis API key (ava_live_...) used when the intent was created | |
| txHash | Yes | 0x-prefixed 32-byte transaction hash from your signed and broadcast transaction | |
| intentId | Yes | The intentId returned by ava_create_token_intent |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses server monitoring, return statuses, and possible failure reasons (tx reverted, wrong chain, txHash used). Lacks mention of idempotency or repeated call behavior, but overall informative.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
3 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then behavioral details, then error handling. Every sentence is essential; no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description includes return fields and statuses. Covers failure modes and polling fallback. Minor gap: does not specify response format or idempotency, but still highly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by clarifying that txHash comes from a signed/broadcast transaction, intentId from ava_create_token_intent, and apiKey must match the one used for intent creation. This context is not in schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: after signing/broadcasting a transaction from ava_create_token_intent, submit txHash to resolve the deployed contract address. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the step in the deployment flow, contrasting with ava_get_deployment_status for polling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use (after signing/broadcasting from ava_create_token_intent) and provides polling instructions for ava_get_deployment_status. Does not explicitly exclude other scenarios, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ava_create_api_keyAInspect
Create a new Ava Genesis API key. Use this once to obtain your ava_live_... key before calling any other tool. The raw key is returned only once in the response — store it securely, it cannot be retrieved again. Each key tracks its own deployment history and rate limits independently. This tool requires no existing API key — it is the bootstrap step for new agents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Human-readable label for this key, e.g. 'Treasury Agent v1'. Helps identify the key in your dashboard. | |
| monthlyLimit | No | Maximum number of mainnet deployments allowed per calendar month (default: 100). Does not limit Sepolia testnet deployments. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses critical behaviors: key returned only once, cannot be retrieved again, each key has independent history and rate limits, and no existing key required. With no annotations, description carries full burden and does it well, though absence of error scenario details prevents a 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four focused sentences, each adding value. Purpose first, then usage instruction, then key property warning, then parameter clarification. No fluff, excellent structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple bootstrap tool with 0 required params and no output schema, description covers purpose, usage, key security, and param details. Minor omission: what happens on failure or limit exceeded, but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds valuable context: 'name' purpose as label, 'monthlyLimit' clarifies it applies only to mainnet and has a default of 100. Enhances schema meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Explicitly states 'Create a new Ava Genesis API key' and positions it as the bootstrap step. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it requires no existing key and is used before all others.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Clearly instructs to use 'once to obtain your ava_live_... key before calling any other tool' and warns about one-time retrieval and secure storage. Lacks explicit when-not or alternatives, but bootstrap nature makes guidance obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ava_create_token_intentAInspect
Deploy an ERC-20 token on mainnet or testnet using your agent's own wallet. Returns encoded calldata (to, value, data) — your agent signs and broadcasts the transaction, paying gas + $10 fee directly from its wallet. Same contract and fee flow as human users on the website. Your agent owns the deployed contract from the moment of deploy. Works on Ethereum, Base, BNB Chain, Polygon, and Sepolia testnet. After broadcasting the tx, call ava_confirm_deployment with the txHash to resolve the contract address. Use ava_simulate_token first to validate config and estimate fees without spending gas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Token name, e.g. 'Agent Treasury Token' | |
| chain | Yes | Target chain. Base and BNB Chain have the lowest gas fees and are recommended for most agent deployments. | |
| apiKey | Yes | Your Ava Genesis API key (ava_live_...) | |
| supply | Yes | Initial token supply as a number string, e.g. '1000000'. Avoid scientific notation. | |
| symbol | Yes | Token ticker symbol, e.g. 'ATT' (max 16 chars, uppercase recommended) | |
| decimals | No | Token decimal places (default: 18) | |
| features | No | Optional feature flags. Premium features (mintable, pausable, blacklist, transferTax, antiWhale) trigger $50 tier. Burnable alone is $20 tier. | |
| template | No | Optional preset that pre-fills feature flags. Use ava_list_templates to see each preset's config. | |
| callbackUrl | No | Optional HTTPS webhook URL to receive status updates (deploying, deployed, failed). Signed with HMAC-SHA256. | |
| idempotencyKey | No | Optional unique string to prevent duplicate deployments on retry. Same key returns the original intent instead of creating a new one. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses return format (calldata), fee ($10 + gas), ownership, chain support, and two-step flow. Lacks details on failure handling or reversibility, but sufficient for most cases. No annotations to contradict.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single paragraph, front-loaded with main purpose, no redundant sentences. Efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all essential aspects: prerequisites (simulate), action steps, chains, fees, ownership, and follow-up (confirm). Adequate for 10-param tool with nested objects and multiple sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage; description adds fee tiers for feature flags (premium vs. burnable) and format hints (e.g., symbol max 16 chars). Adds value beyond schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool deploys an ERC-20 token and returns calldata for agent to sign. It distinguishes from siblings like ava_simulate_token (validation) and ava_confirm_deployment (post-broadcast).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly guides to use ava_simulate_token first for validation, then ava_create_token_intent, then ava_confirm_deployment. Recommends Base/BNB for low gas. Provides when-to-use and post-conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ava_deploy_tokenAInspect
Deploy an ERC-20 token on Sepolia testnet with no wallet required — TESTNET ONLY, always free. The platform wallet signs and broadcasts the transaction on your behalf. Use for integration testing before mainnet. Blocks until deployed (polls up to 3 minutes) and returns the final contract address in one call. Returns: { ok, status, contractAddress, tokenName, tokenSymbol, chain, chainId, txHash, explorerUrl, tokenUrl, intentId }. On timeout returns status='timeout' with a status_url to poll manually via ava_get_deployment_status. On failure returns ok=false with errorMessage. For mainnet deployments use ava_create_token_intent — your agent signs with its own wallet and pays gas + $10 fee directly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Token name, e.g. 'My Protocol Token' | |
| chain | Yes | Only 'sepolia' is allowed. Mainnet requires ava_create_token_intent. | |
| apiKey | Yes | Your Ava Genesis API key (ava_live_...) | |
| supply | Yes | Initial supply as a number string, e.g. '1000000' | |
| symbol | Yes | Token symbol, e.g. 'MPT' (max 16 chars, uppercase) | |
| decimals | No | Decimals (default: 18) | |
| features | No | Optional feature flags (override template) | |
| template | No | Optional preset configuration | |
| callbackUrl | No | Webhook URL for status events (optional) | |
| ownerAddress | No | Wallet address that will receive the tokens and own the contract. If omitted, tokens remain with the platform deployer. | |
| idempotencyKey | No | Unique key to prevent duplicate deploys on retry (optional) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses platform signs transaction, blocks up to 3 minutes, returns final contract address, timeout behavior with status_url, and error handling. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden and meets it comprehensively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is informative and front-loaded with key points (testnet, free, no wallet). Every sentence adds value, though could be slightly condensed. Well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description fully explains return values and error/timeout scenarios. Covers all key aspects: purpose, limitations, behavior, and alternatives. Adequate for the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds context like chain enum restriction and return format but doesn't significantly enhance individual parameter understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool deploys an ERC-20 token on Sepolia testnet, distinguishes from mainnet alternative ava_create_token_intent, and specifies key constraints like no wallet required and always free.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says use for integration testing before mainnet, and for mainnet use ava_create_token_intent. Also describes blocking behavior, timeout handling, and when to use ava_get_deployment_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ava_get_deployment_statusAInspect
Poll the current status of a token deployment by its intentId. Use this after ava_deploy_token times out, or to check progress of an ava_create_token_intent flow. Returns: status ('deploying' | 'deployed' | 'failed'), contractAddress and explorer links when deployed, errorMessage on failure. Poll every 5-10 seconds. Most deployments complete within 60 seconds. Possible errors: insufficient fee sent, gas spike, RPC timeout — check errorMessage field.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | Yes | Your Ava Genesis API key (ava_live_...) used when the deployment was created | |
| intentId | Yes | The intentId returned by ava_deploy_token, ava_create_token_intent, or ava_confirm_deployment |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns status, contractAddress, explorer links, and errorMessage. It lists possible error causes (insufficient fee, gas spike, RPC timeout) and mentions it is a polling tool, implying non-destructive read-only operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with 4 sentences, each serving a purpose. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, then usage context, return values, and finally polling guidance. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the operation, when to use, return values, polling behavior, typical duration, and possible errors. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond schema for the intentId parameter by specifying it must come from specific sibling tools (ava_deploy_token, ava_create_token_intent, ava_confirm_deployment). This extra guidance justifies a 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool polls current status of a token deployment by intentId. It specifies the verb 'poll' and the resource 'deployment status', and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning it is used after ava_deploy_token times out or after ava_create_token_intent flow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit usage guidance: 'Use this after ava_deploy_token times out, or to check progress of an ava_create_token_intent flow.' It also recommends polling interval (every 5-10 seconds) and notes typical completion time (60 seconds).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ava_get_gas_pricesAInspect
Get real-time gas prices and total deployment cost estimates across all supported chains. Use this before deploying to pick the cheapest chain and avoid gas spikes. No API key required. Returns: gasPrice (gwei), estimatedDeployGas, totalCostEth, totalCostUsd, and platformFeeUsd for each chain. Data is fetched live from each chain's RPC — prices reflect current mempool conditions. Cache TTL: 15 seconds. If a chain RPC is unreachable, that chain is omitted from the response. Base and BNB Chain consistently have the lowest fees; Ethereum mainnet the highest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: live RPC data, 15-second cache TTL, omission of unreachable chains, and typical cost patterns (Base/BNB low, Ethereum high). This is thorough and transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise yet comprehensive, starting with purpose, then usage, return values, and behavioral notes. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description lists all return fields (gasPrice, estimatedDeployGas, etc.) and covers error handling (RPC unreachable). The tool has no parameters, so completeness is high given the context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and no additional parameter information is needed. The description adds value by explaining return fields, which compensates for lack of output schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves real-time gas prices and cost estimates across all supported chains. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which focus on deployment, token creation, and other actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises using before deploying to pick the cheapest chain and avoid gas spikes. Also notes no API key is required. While alternative tools are not discussed, the usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ava_list_my_tokensAInspect
List all ERC-20 tokens deployed via your API key, newest first. Use to audit past deployments, find a contract address, or check deployment history. Supports filtering by status and chain. Returns up to 50 results by default (max 200). Does not return tokens deployed by other API keys even on the same account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | Filter by chain. Omit to return tokens across all chains. | |
| limit | No | Number of results to return (default: 50, max: 200) | |
| apiKey | Yes | Your Ava Genesis API key (ava_live_...) | |
| status | No | Filter by deployment status. Omit to return all statuses. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses: sorting (newest first), default/max limit (50/200), filtering options, and scope (only own API key). It does not mention rate limits, error handling, or response shape, which is a minor gap for a read-only list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, concise and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: first states purpose and ordering, second lists use cases and constraints. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should explain return values. It mentions 'returns up to 50 results' but doesn't describe the fields (e.g., contract address, name, status). This is a notable gap for completeness. Otherwise covers purpose, filters, and limits adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description reinforces filtering by status/chain and limit behavior but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists ERC-20 tokens deployed via the user's API key, newest first. It distinguishes from siblings like ava_get_deployment_status (status of one token) and ava_list_templates (templates), making its purpose specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear use cases: 'audit past deployments, find a contract address, or check deployment history.' It also notes it excludes tokens from other API keys. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context and sibling tools imply alternatives. Minor gap: no direct comparison to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ava_list_templatesAInspect
List all available token templates with their pre-configured feature flags. Call this before ava_simulate_token or ava_deploy_token to choose a template that matches your use case. Templates: utility (basic transferable token), governance (voting rights), reward (distributor-controlled), treasury (mintable reserve), community (burnable social token), meme (no restrictions, max supply). Returns: template name, description, and the exact feature flags each preset applies. Templates are read-only presets — individual flags can be overridden via the features parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It specifies templates are read-only, describes output contents, and mentions override possibility. However, does not explicitly state idempotency or rate limits, though these are minor for a list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences front-load core purpose and usage, list template types efficiently, and end with output details. No superfluous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, description covers purpose, usage, template types, and output contents. Could optionally mention result ordering or pagination, but not essential.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters (100% coverage vacuously), so baseline is 4. Description adds context about template selection but no parameter details needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool lists token templates with feature flags, and explicitly advises calling it before related tools like ava_simulate_token and ava_deploy_token, differentiating it from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs when to use ('call this before ava_simulate_token or ava_deploy_token') and notes that templates are read-only presets with override capability via features parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ava_simulate_tokenAInspect
Validate a token configuration and get a fee estimate without spending gas or deploying anything. Use this before ava_deploy_token or ava_create_token_intent to confirm the config is valid and see the exact ETH cost. Returns: estimated fee in ETH and USD, resolved feature flags, tier (Starter/Basic/Premium), and any validation errors. Does not create an intent or charge any fee.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Token name, e.g. 'My Protocol Token' | |
| chain | Yes | Target chain for fee estimate. Base and BNB Chain have lowest gas fees. | |
| apiKey | Yes | Your Ava Genesis API key (ava_live_...) | |
| supply | Yes | Initial token supply as a number string, e.g. '1000000'. Avoid scientific notation. | |
| symbol | Yes | Token ticker symbol, e.g. 'MPT' (max 16 chars, uppercase recommended) | |
| decimals | No | Token decimal places (default: 18). Use 6 for stablecoin-like tokens, 18 for standard ERC-20. | |
| features | No | Optional feature overrides. Any premium feature (mintable, pausable, blacklist, transferTax, antiWhale) triggers the $50 tier. Burnable alone is $20 Basic tier. | |
| template | No | Optional preset that pre-fills feature flags. Use ava_list_templates to see each preset's config. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool does not spend gas, deploy anything, create an intent, or charge fees—clear read-only behavior. It also lists return values (fee estimate, feature flags, tier, errors). However, it could add more detail about error handling or edge cases, but overall transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences that front-load the primary purpose, then usage context, then return values. Every sentence is necessary and contributes to understanding. No redundant or vague language.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, nested features object, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns. It could briefly mention that the features object is detailed in the input schema, but overall it's sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-described. The description adds no new semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides. It does reinforce the overall purpose but doesn't enhance individual parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool validates a token configuration and provides a fee estimate. It uses specific verbs ('validate', 'get a fee estimate') and resource ('token configuration'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming ava_deploy_token and ava_create_token_intent as later steps and stating it does not create an intent or charge fees.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly guides the agent to use this tool before ava_deploy_token or ava_create_token_intent to confirm config validity and see exact ETH cost. It implies not to use when intending to deploy or create intent, and mentions alternatives (the sibling tools). The guidance is direct and practical.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!