Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

chaink9

by com.chaink9
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

liquidity-report

Read-only

Read the token's market at one finalized block. A V3 or V4 pool returns pool_version, fee, hook, active liquidity, price and (V3) the coins the pool holds; its positions are NFTs, so holders and lock IDs are refused. A V2 pair returns canonical reserves against WBNB/WETH (PancakeSwap on BSC, Uniswap on Ethereum and Base), LP supply, burned LP and up to ten supplied holders. On BSC, optionally verify up to ten PinkLock V2 simple lock IDs against the pinned BSC contract, exact runtime hash and aggregate LP custody. Reports future, elapsed, withdrawn and unsupported vesting records. No holder/lock discovery or withdrawal simulation; other contract-held LP remains unknown. Lock and holder amounts overlap. Costs $0.003 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>"
    },
    "name": "liquidity-report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNobsc (BNB Smart Chain, the default), eth (Ethereum) or base (Base)
tokenYesToken
holdersNoOptional comma-separated LP holder addresses, maximum ten
pinklock_idsNoOptional, BSC only: comma-separated PinkLock V2 lock IDs, maximum ten unique decimal IDs; only simple time locks counted

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses pricing ($0.003 per successful call), the payment mechanism (x402 in the call's _meta), that failed calls are free, and the accepted payment chains. It also states concrete epistemic limits ('other contract-held LP remains unknown', 'Lock and holder amounts overlap'), which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and every subsequent clause carries information (return shape, exclusions, cost). It is a dense run-on paragraph, but no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields for each pool type, the vesting record categories, and the cost model. For a read-only, open-world tool of this complexity, an agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 real meaning: it explains that holders apply only to V2 pairs and that pinklock_ids are BSC-only and limited to simple time locks. That conditional applicability is not derivable from the schema alone.

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 description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read the token's market at one finalized block') and then splits behavior by pool type (V3/V4 vs V2), which lets an agent predict the shape of the result. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool it is not, so it falls short of 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 through the pool-type branching and the stated exclusions ('No holder/lock discovery or withdrawal simulation'), which tell the agent what this tool will not do. However, it never says when to prefer this over siblings such as exit-check, scan, or deployer-report, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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