Audits Uniswap V3/V4 and Aerodrome liquidity pools on Base, returning tick liquidity depth, fee tier, price impact bps, and LP concentration rug-risk scores. Price: 0.010 USDC on Base or Solana.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quote_token | No | USDC | |
| pool_or_token_address | Yes | Pool or token address on Base |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pair | Yes | ||
| tvl_usd | Yes | ||
| rug_risk | No | ||
| spot_price_usd | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "pair": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "rug_risk": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "spot_price_usd": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "tvl_usd": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "pair",
+ "spot_price_usd",
+ "tvl_usd"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful beyond-annotation context: the returned analytics and a per-call price of 0.010 USDC, though it does not explain payment mechanics or rate limits.
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-load the purpose and outputs, then append pricing. There is no filler or repetition.
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?
Output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, so the description is close to sufficient for basic invocation. However, it omits 'quote_token' semantics and does not clarify token-address handling, leaving key calling context incomplete.
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 description coverage is only 50%, and the description does not compensate by explaining 'quote_token' or how a token address is resolved to a pool. It only restates that the address is on Base, adding little parameter clarity 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?
States a specific verb ('Audits') and resource scope: Uniswap V3/V4 and Aerodrome liquidity pools on Base, plus enumerated returned metrics. This distinguishes it from wallet-, token-, and yield-focused siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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/when-not guidance or named alternative is provided. The pool-specific scope implies use for liquidity-pool audits, but overlap with token-inspection siblings through 'pool_or_token_address' is left unaddressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.