Solana + EVM liquidity-pool scores: Enter/Hold/Exit verdicts and 0-100 Wealthville Score.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.2/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: scoring a specific pool, retrieving signal feed, ranking top pools, and showing track record. No overlap exists between the tool functionalities.
All tool names follow the consistent 'get_' prefix followed by a noun phrase (pool_score, signals_feed, top_pools, track_record), maintaining a predictable verb_noun pattern.
With 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for a focused server providing liquidity pool scoring, signals, rankings, and performance history. No unnecessary tools and no missing essential ones for the core domain.
The tools cover the key operations: individual pool score, latest signals, top pools ranking, and track record. Minor gaps like historical pool scores or filtering capabilities exist, but the core workflow is supported.
get_pool_scoreAGet the Wealthville verdict (ENTER/HOLD/EXIT/AVOID) and scores (enter/hold/exit + composite Wealthville Score, 0-100) for one liquidity pool. Use before recommending or opening any LP position. Accepts a Solana pool address (base58) or an EVM 0x address / DefiLlama pool UUID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pool_address | Yes | Pool address: Solana base58, EVM 0x, or DefiLlama UUID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying the output (verdict options and score range) and input flexibility (multiple address types), without contradicting 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?
The description is two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core function and output, and the second provides usage guidance and input requirements. No wasted 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?
The description specifies the output in detail (verdict categories and score names/range) and the input format (address types). Without an output schema, this provides sufficient context for the agent. Minor missing detail on exact JSON structure prevents a 5.
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 the parameter description in the schema matching the tool description. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 the verb 'Get' and identifies the specific data returned (Wealthville verdict and scores) for one liquidity pool. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_top_pools by focusing on individual pool assessment.
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 explicitly says 'Use before recommending or opening any LP position,' providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_signals_feedAGet the latest published Wealthville signals (ENTER/EXIT/RISK_OFF calls with narrative and confidence). Use for "any new LP signals?" questions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many signals (default 20) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds narrative and confidence details beyond annotations, which already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent hints. No contradictions; useful context for the agent.
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 action, no filler. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema; description covers purpose, usage, and parameter context completely.
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% and describes the 'limit' parameter well. Description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, baseline score applies.
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 verb 'Get', resource 'latest published Wealthville signals', and specifies signal types (ENTER/EXIT/RISK_OFF). Distinct from siblings like get_pool_score and get_track_record.
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 states use case: 'Use for "any new LP signals?" questions.' Lacks guidance on when not to use or alternatives, but clear context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_top_poolsAList liquidity pools ranked by composite Wealthville Score (0-100), freshly scored within the last 6 hours. Good for "what are the best pools right now?" questions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | "solana" (default), "evm" (all EVM chains), or one EVM chain e.g. "ethereum", "base" | |
| limit | No | How many pools (default 25) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating that pools are 'freshly scored within the last 6 hours' and that the score is a composite (0-100). This provides behavioral context beyond 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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence efficiently states the purpose and key attributes; the second provides a usage context. 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?
Given the tool has only two optional parameters, simple annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, ranking method, freshness, and a usage hint. It does not detail the output format (e.g., whether it returns pool IDs or full details), but this is a minor gap.
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?
Both parameters (chain and limit) have full descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add new meaning to these parameters, only implies that the output is a list. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents them.
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 tool lists liquidity pools ranked by a composite Wealthville Score (0-100), with freshness within 6 hours. This differentiates it from siblings like get_pool_score (gets a single pool's score) and get_signals_feed (signal data). The verb 'list' and resource 'liquidity pools' are specific and unambiguous.
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 includes a usage hint: 'Good for "what are the best pools right now?" questions.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions when not to use it, but the sibling names imply alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_track_recordAGet Wealthville's live signal track record: per-action hit rates, IL-adjusted 7-day PnL, and recent resolved signals — misses included (the ledger is immutable at publish time). Use when asked whether Wealthville scores can be trusted, or for the system's recent performance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Window in days (default 30) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that misses are included and the ledger is immutable at publish time, providing valuable context beyond 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 sentences with key information front-loaded. Every sentence adds value with no wasted 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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return data and usage context. Could be slightly more explicit about output format, but adequate.
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% and already describes the 'days' parameter with min, max, and default. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 tool retrieves Wealthville's live signal track record, listing specific data (hit rates, PnL, resolved signals). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pool_score and get_signals_feed by focusing on performance metrics.
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 states when to use: 'when asked whether Wealthville scores can be trusted, or for the system's recent performance.' While it doesn't state when not to use, the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
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
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!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.