Skip to main content
Glama

bobai_purchase_guide

Read-only

Ready-to-run viem code for a $BOBAI purchase with BNB on PancakeSwap V2. Reports a live on-chain quote, the slippage a buy needs (about 6% at any size, from the measured tax) and the fee-on-transfer method name, so an agent has everything it needs zero-shot. Returns text; this tool holds no key and moves nothing. Use it when you want working code; for the raw parameters only, bobai_dex_info.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "bobai_purchase_guide"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Goes beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations by disclosing that it returns text, that it holds no key and moves nothing, and that the quote is live on-chain data. It does not mention latency, rate limits, or freshness caveats for the live quote, which keeps it short of 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the artifact and followed by return contents and the sibling routing rule. Slightly promotional phrasing ('zero-shot', 'everything it needs') adds a little padding without harming comprehension.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden and does explain what the text output reports. The exact shape of the returned code block (language, variables, chain config) is not spelled out, leaving a small gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It usefully notes the fixed pair/size assumptions (BNB, PancakeSwap V2) that effectively serve as implicit parameters.

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 and artifact (generates ready-to-run viem code for a $BOBAI buy with BNB on PancakeSwap V2) plus the exact output contents: live on-chain quote, ~6% slippage need, and fee-on-transfer method name. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling bobai_dex_info, which returns only raw parameters.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit routing: 'Use it when you want working code; for the raw parameters only, bobai_dex_info.' Both the selection condition and the alternative tool are named, so the agent need not infer anything.

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.

Resources