Native cross-chain swaps: Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, Polkadot, Tron, Arbitrum. Quote, swap, track.
Check the status of a swap by its ID. Returns the current swap state including deposit detection, swap progress, and egress information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| swapId | Yes | The swap ID returned by start_swap or start_dca_swap |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by indicating what status information is returned, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.
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 adequately explains what the tool returns. For a simple read-only tool with one parameter, the description covers all needed 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter. The description does not add new semantics beyond the schema's description of the swapId parameter. Baseline score 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 it checks swap status by ID, listing specific return components (deposit detection, swap progress, egress info). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are for quotes or starting swaps.
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?
Usage context is implied (after starting a swap) but no explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives is provided. The description does not mention when not to use or compare to other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get swap quotes for exchanging one crypto asset to another using native (smallest unit) amounts. Returns available quotes with exchange rates, fees, and estimated output amounts. Use this when you have amounts in native units (e.g., satoshis for BTC, wei for ETH). API key is optional.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | Amount to swap in native units (e.g., '100000000' for 1 BTC in satoshis) | |
| apiKey | No | Optional partner API key. | |
| sourceAsset | Yes | Source asset identifier (e.g., 'btc.btc', 'eth.eth', 'usdc.eth') | |
| destinationAsset | Yes | Destination asset identifier (e.g., 'eth.eth', 'btc.btc', 'sol.sol') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about return fields (exchange rates, fees, estimated output) and API key optionality. No contradictions. Does not mention rate limits or permissions, but annotations cover safety adequately.
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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose and key distinguishing feature (native units). Each sentence contributes meaning.
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 read-only quote tool with complete schema descriptions and safety annotations, the description covers return values and optional API key. Could mention quote multiplicity or that it's non-executing, but overall sufficient for typical usage.
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 detailed parameter descriptions. The description reinforces the native unit concept with examples, adding marginal value beyond the schema. Baseline 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?
Clearly states it gets swap quotes for crypto assets using native units, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_quotes that likely use decimal amounts. The verb 'get' and resource 'native quotes' are specific.
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 when to use: when amounts are in native units. Also notes API key is optional. Could strengthen by explicitly naming alternative tools (e.g., get_quotes for decimal amounts), but the guidance is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get swap quotes for exchanging one crypto asset to another. Returns available quotes with exchange rates, fees, and estimated output amounts. API key is optional.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | Amount to swap in human-readable format (e.g., 1.5 for 1.5 BTC) | |
| apiKey | No | Optional partner API key. | |
| sourceAsset | Yes | Source asset identifier (e.g., 'btc.btc', 'eth.eth', 'usdc.eth') | |
| destinationAsset | Yes | Destination asset identifier (e.g., 'eth.eth', 'btc.btc', 'sol.sol') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about returning quotes with rates, fees, and estimated outputs, which is consistent but does not reveal additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and concisely adds return value details and parameter note. No redundant or extraneous 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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (rates, fees, output amounts). However, it omits potential error conditions, pagination, or size limits. Annotations provide safety context, making it fairly 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%, so the description adds no new meaning over the schema descriptions. The human-readable format note is already in the schema. No additional semantics beyond 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 it gets swap quotes for crypto asset exchange and explains the return value (exchange rates, fees, output amounts). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_native_quotes', which likely has a similar purpose.
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 mentions 'API key is optional', which provides some usage guidance, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_native_quotes' or any conditions/exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all available swap assets and their details including ticker, network, direction, decimals, minimum amounts, and current USD prices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying the exact fields returned (ticker, network, etc.), though it could mention whether the list is exhaustive or if there are pagination considerations.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every phrase adds value, listing the key output fields.
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 adequately explains the return details. However, it could mention that no input is required and briefly note error handling or that the list is a flat collection.
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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the description need not add parameter details, and the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the output.
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 verb 'List' and resource 'all available swap assets', enumerating specific details (ticker, network, direction, decimals, minimum amounts, USD prices), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_quotes or start_swap.
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 implies usage for retrieving a list of assets but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_quotes or start_swap, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Start a DCA (Dollar Cost Averaging) cross-chain swap that splits into multiple sub-swaps over time. Returns the deposit address. API key is optional.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | Optional partner API key. | |
| sourceAsset | Yes | Source asset identifier (e.g., 'btc.btc', 'eth.eth', 'usdc.eth') | |
| minimumPrice | No | Optional minimum accepted price as a destination-per-source ratio (e.g., for a btc.btc to eth.eth swap, 28.5 means 1 BTC gets at least 28.5 ETH). When omitted, automatically calculated from current pool prices with 2% slippage tolerance. Set to 0 to accept any price. | |
| refundAddress | Yes | Refund address on the source chain, used if minimum price cannot be met | |
| numberOfChunks | Yes | Number of sub-swaps for DCA (Dollar Cost Averaging). Must be >= 1. | |
| destinationAsset | Yes | Destination asset identifier (e.g., 'eth.eth', 'btc.btc', 'sol.sol') | |
| destinationAddress | Yes | Destination address on the target chain | |
| chunkIntervalBlocks | No | Optional delay between DCA sub-swaps in state-chain blocks (1 block = 6 seconds). Defaults to 2 blocks (12 seconds). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent. Description adds 'Returns deposit address' but no further behavioral details like state changes or approval needs. No contradiction.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key return value. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
With 8 parameters and no output schema, description is brief. Does not explain DCA mechanism, pricing, or outcome after creation. Leaves gaps for complex usage.
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 3. Description adds some value (explains cross-chain, sub-swaps, deposit address) but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond 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?
Description clearly states it starts a DCA cross-chain swap with sub-swaps, distinguishing it from sibling tools like start_swap (single swap). Verb 'start' and resource 'DCA swap' are specific.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Mentions API key optional but no context on choosing between DCA and regular swap. Implies usage for splitting swaps over time.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Start a cross-chain swap. Returns the deposit address where you should send your source asset. API key is optional.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | Optional partner API key. | |
| sourceAsset | Yes | Source asset identifier (e.g., 'btc.btc', 'eth.eth', 'usdc.eth') | |
| minimumPrice | No | Optional minimum accepted price as a destination-per-source ratio (e.g., for a btc.btc to eth.eth swap, 28.5 means 1 BTC gets at least 28.5 ETH). When omitted, automatically calculated from current pool prices with 2% slippage tolerance. Set to 0 to accept any price. | |
| refundAddress | Yes | Refund address on the source chain, used if minimum price cannot be met | |
| destinationAsset | Yes | Destination asset identifier (e.g., 'eth.eth', 'btc.btc', 'sol.sol') | |
| destinationAddress | Yes | Destination address on the target chain |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. Description adds that the tool returns a deposit address for sending the source asset, which is key behavioral context. However, it does not disclose what happens if assets are not sent, timeouts, or the role of the API key. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and output. No unnecessary 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 6 parameters (4 required) and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return value but lacks details on post-call steps (e.g., transferring assets) and the minimumPrice parameter behavior (though schema covers it). It is adequate but could be more complete for new users.
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 detailed parameter descriptions. The description only reiterates that API key is optional, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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?
Clearly states it starts a cross-chain swap and returns the deposit address. The verb 'start' and resource 'swap' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like get_quotes and start_dca_swap.
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?
Mentions API key is optional, but there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_quotes, start_dca_swap) or the sequence of operations. The context of sending assets to the deposit address is implied but not explicitly framed as a prerequisite.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
check_statusget_native_quotesget_quoteslist_assetsstart_dca_swapstart_swapClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Quote, create and track cross-chain crypto swaps. Non-custodial exchange, no account, no KYC.
Cross-chain swap aggregator across 16+ chains, incl. native Bitcoin/Solana. 0% fees, non-custodial.
Non-custodial cross-chain crypto swap MCP — 1288+ assets, no KYC. Solana/EVM/Monero, RPC, oracle.
Non-custodial value router: ranked fiat/crypto & cross-chain routes, swaps, onramp, gasless wallet.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes: status checking, quotes, asset listing, swap initiation. The two quote tools (get_native_quotes and get_quotes) differ in input units, which is clarified in descriptions but could still cause minor confusion for an agent.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (check_status, get_native_quotes, get_quotes, list_assets, start_dca_swap, start_swap).
With 6 tools covering quotes, asset info, swap initiation, and status checks, the count is well-scoped for a swap service without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool set covers the core swap lifecycle: get quotes, list assets, start swaps (including DCA), and check status. Missing potential operations like cancel or list past swaps, but these are not essential for the primary use case.
