Epsilon

get_route

Read-only

Full routing breakdown for a swap: best venue split, expected and minimum output, price impact (ppm), and the feeLegs a signed order must embed. Read-only. Amounts are RAW token units.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`wallet`	No	optional maker wallet address — include it to get the exact feeLegs an order for this wallet must embed
`tokenIn`	Yes	ERC-20 address of the token being sold (0x-hex)
`amountIn`	Yes	amount of tokenIn in RAW token units (decimal string, already scaled by the token's decimals)
`tokenOut`	Yes	ERC-20 address of the token being bought (0x-hex)
`orderType`	No	order kind being priced (limit \| stop_loss \| take_profit \| dca \| trailing) — selects the fee cell served in feeLegs; omit for a direct swap
`triggered`	No	with orderType=dca: the schedule gates on a trigger (triggered DCA fee cell)
`slippageBps`	No	slippage tolerance in basis points (default 100 = 1%)

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It adds value by warning that amounts are RAW token units and clarifying that feeLegs are what a signed order embeds. There is 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three short sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose and outputs are front-loaded, the read-only nature is stated separately, and the RAW units caveat is its own sentence. Every phrase earns its place.

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, the description compensates by naming the returned fields: venue split, expected/minimum output, price impact, and feeLegs. It captures the essence of the tool for correct invocation, though it does not enumerate every conditional interaction among orderType, triggered, and wallet.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds global context about RAW units and the purpose of feeLegs, but does not materially expand on individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a routing breakdown for a swap, listing concrete outputs (best venue split, expected/minimum output, price impact, feeLegs). This distinguishes it from related query tools like get_quote by emphasizing the full routing and order-embedding details, not just a quote.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It establishes a clear use case: when you need routing details for a swap and the feeLegs that a signed order must embed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5, but the purpose is concrete enough for an agent to select it over siblings like get_quote or get_orderbook.

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

All Epsilon tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are clearly separated by resource (orders, quotes, routes, tokens, docs, examples), but market_stats, get_market_overview, and token_volume overlap on volume/engine-wide stats, and get_quote/get_route are closely related. Descriptions mitigate most misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most accessors use get_/list_/search_ verbs, but five tools (error_catalog, market_stats, order_preflight, recent_swaps, token_volume) use bare noun phrases instead of a consistent verb-first pattern. All names are snake_case and readable, so the mixed verbs are a moderate inconsistency.

Tool Count4/5

At 15 tools the server is at the top of the ideal range and each area (market data, orders, quotes/routing, docs, examples) is represented. A few overlapping stats/volume tools make it feel slightly heavier than necessary, but the count is not a problem.

Completeness3/5

The read-only surface is fairly complete: quotes, routes, orderbook, order status/list, market stats, token search, docs, examples, and error catalog. However, there are no tools to create/submit or cancel orders, and no wallet/balance/allowance tools, so agents cannot complete an actual trade from quote to execution. This is a notable gap if the server is meant to support trading, not just research/development.

Resources

Need Help?