Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

chaink9

by com.chaink9
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

exit-check

Read-only

Test up to four independent sell sizes from an EOA's existing token balance. Each size starts from the same fork snapshot; approvals are included when needed. Sells through the token's V2, V3 or V4 market (as simulate-trade finds it) with the wallet's real BNB or ETH for gas. Returns observed sell outcomes, not a guarantee of future exit. Costs $0.04 per successful call in USDC on Base, Polygon, Arbitrum, Avalanche, BNB Smart Chain (USDT) or Solana, paid with x402 in the call's _meta; failed calls are free.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "token": "<token>",
      "wallet": "<wallet>",
      "amounts": "<amounts>"
    },
    "name": "exit-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNobsc (BNB Smart Chain, the default), eth (Ethereum) or base (Base)
tokenYesToken
walletYesExisting holder
amountsYesOne to four comma-separated token base-unit integers

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses the fork-snapshot model, that approvals are auto-included, that gas is drawn from the wallet's real BNB/ETH balance, that results are observed outcomes and not a guarantee, and a full pricing profile ($0.04 per successful call across six chains via x402 in _meta, failed calls free). These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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 action, then mechanics, then the caveat, then price — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. It is dense with clauses (parentheticals, chain list, payment detail) but each carries operational information, so little is wasted.

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?

For a paid simulation tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, execution model, cost and the failure case well. The gap is the return value: 'observed sell outcomes' is only gestured at, with no indication of what per-size fields come back (fill, price impact, revert reason), which an agent needs when no output schema exists.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that the comma-separated amounts are up to four independent sizes and that every size starts from the same snapshot, which is the key comparability property. It says nothing about the 'chain' parameter, whose enum includes an 'arc' value the schema itself does not explain.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence names a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Test up to four independent sell sizes from an EOA's existing token balance.' It also implicitly situates itself against simulate-trade by noting the market is picked 'as simulate-trade finds it', but it never states the contrast directly, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is for testing whether an existing holder can get out, which an agent can infer from 'EOA's existing token balance' and 'observed sell outcomes'. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. simulate-trade or transaction-preview) with the condition that selects it.

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

All chaink9 toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources