ava-genesis
Server Details
Deploy ERC-20 tokens on Ethereum, Base, BNB, Polygon via MCP. One call = deployed contract.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.5/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: API key creation, template listing, simulation, gas pricing, two deployment paths (testnet vs mainnet), deployment confirmation, status polling, and token listing. Descriptions explicitly distinguish the deployment flows, preventing confusion.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with the 'ava_' prefix (e.g., ava_confirm_deployment, ava_list_templates). The naming is predictable and self-documenting, making it easy to infer each tool's function.
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for a token deployment service. Each tool addresses a specific step in the workflow (key creation, template selection, simulation, gas check, deployment, confirmation, status polling, listing) without unnecessary overhead.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of token deployment: bootstrap (API key), planning (templates, simulation, gas prices), execution (deploy on testnet or mainnet, confirm, poll status), and auditing (list tokens). No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
9 toolsava_confirm_deploymentAInspect
After signing and broadcasting the transaction returned by ava_create_token_intent, submit the txHash here to resolve the deployed contract address. The server monitors the chain for the transaction receipt and updates the intent status. Returns: status ('deploying' | 'deployed' | 'failed'), contractAddress when confirmed, explorerUrl, and tokenUrl. If status is still 'deploying', poll ava_get_deployment_status every 5-10 seconds until resolved. Possible failures: tx reverted (insufficient fee or gas), wrong chain, txHash already used.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | Yes | Your Ava Genesis API key (ava_live_...) used when the intent was created | |
| txHash | Yes | 0x-prefixed 32-byte transaction hash from your signed and broadcast transaction | |
| intentId | Yes | The intentId returned by ava_create_token_intent |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool monitors the chain, updates intent status, and returns possible statuses and addresses. It also lists possible failures (tx reverted, wrong chain, txHash already used), providing good behavioral insight.
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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the purpose, then explains the flow, return values, polling instructions, and failure modes. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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 complexity (no output schema, 3 parameters, need for polling), the description covers the entire workflow, return values, polling guidance, and failure scenarios. It is fully complete for an AI agent to use correctly.
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 is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that apiKey must match the one used during intent creation, txHash must be 0x-prefixed and 32-byte from the signed transaction, and intentId from ava_create_token_intent, which enhances understanding 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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: after signing and broadcasting the transaction from ava_create_token_intent, submit the txHash to resolve the deployed contract address. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ava_get_deployment_status by specifying when to use this tool in the deployment flow.
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 states when to use the tool (after signing and broadcasting the transaction) and provides guidance on polling with ava_get_deployment_status if the status is 'deploying'. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ava_create_api_keyAInspect
Create a new Ava Genesis API key. Use this once to obtain your ava_live_... key before calling any other tool. The raw key is returned only once in the response — store it securely, it cannot be retrieved again. Each key tracks its own deployment history and rate limits independently. This tool requires no existing API key — it is the bootstrap step for new agents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Human-readable label for this key, e.g. 'Treasury Agent v1'. Helps identify the key in your dashboard. | |
| monthlyLimit | No | Maximum number of mainnet deployments allowed per calendar month (default: 100). Does not limit Sepolia testnet deployments. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description fully compensates: discloses that the key is returned only once, cannot be retrieved again, tracks own history, requires no existing API key. 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?
Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, every sentence adds value. 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?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and only two optional parameters, the description covers purpose, usage scenario, behavioral traits (one-time key, secure storage), and lack of auth requirement. Complete for this simple tool.
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 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so 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?
The description states the specific verb 'Create' and resource 'Ava Genesis API key'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (none are about key creation) by framing it as the bootstrap step for new agents.
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 'Use this once to obtain your ava_live_... key before calling any other tool', providing clear usage context. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the one-time nature is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ava_create_token_intentAInspect
Deploy an ERC-20 token on mainnet or testnet using your agent's own wallet. Returns encoded calldata (to, value, data) — your agent signs and broadcasts the transaction, paying gas + $10 fee directly from its wallet. Same contract and fee flow as human users on the website. Your agent owns the deployed contract from the moment of deploy. Works on Ethereum, Base, BNB Chain, Polygon, and Sepolia testnet. After broadcasting the tx, call ava_confirm_deployment with the txHash to resolve the contract address. Use ava_simulate_token first to validate config and estimate fees without spending gas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Token name, e.g. 'Agent Treasury Token' | |
| chain | Yes | Target chain. Base and BNB Chain have the lowest gas fees and are recommended for most agent deployments. | |
| apiKey | Yes | Your Ava Genesis API key (ava_live_...) | |
| supply | Yes | Initial token supply as a number string, e.g. '1000000'. Avoid scientific notation. | |
| symbol | Yes | Token ticker symbol, e.g. 'ATT' (max 16 chars, uppercase recommended) | |
| decimals | No | Token decimal places (default: 18) | |
| features | No | Optional feature flags. Premium features (mintable, pausable, blacklist, transferTax, antiWhale) trigger $50 tier. Burnable alone is $20 tier. | |
| template | No | Optional preset that pre-fills feature flags. Use ava_list_templates to see each preset's config. | |
| callbackUrl | No | Optional HTTPS webhook URL to receive status updates (deploying, deployed, failed). Signed with HMAC-SHA256. | |
| idempotencyKey | No | Optional unique string to prevent duplicate deployments on retry. Same key returns the original intent instead of creating a new one. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses key behaviors: returns encoded calldata, agent signs and broadcasts, pays gas + $10 fee, agent owns contract from deploy, works on specific chains, and post-broadcast step. Could mention error handling or gas insufficiency, but covers major aspects.
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?
Description is a single paragraph of ~100 words, front-loaded with main purpose. Covers essential information efficiently. Could benefit from bullet points for scannability, but no wasted sentences.
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?
No output schema, but description explains return format (encoded calldata with to, value, data). Covers fee, ownership, chain support, and next step (confirm deployment). References ava_list_templates for feature details. Missing potential error states, but adequate for complex tool.
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 is 3. Description adds value by contextualizing parameters (e.g., recommending chains, explaining fee, describing callback and idempotency). Does not repeat schema descriptions but enhances understanding of the overall workflow.
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 'Deploy an ERC-20 token' using the agent's wallet, specifying supported chains and distinguishing from sibling tools like ava_simulate_token and ava_confirm_deployment. The verb+resource+scope is 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?
Explicitly advises using ava_simulate_token first for validation and ava_confirm_deployment after broadcast. Recommends Base/BNB Chain for lower fees. Provides workflow context but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other deployment tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ava_deploy_tokenAInspect
Deploy an ERC-20 token on Sepolia testnet with no wallet required — TESTNET ONLY, always free. The platform wallet signs and broadcasts the transaction on your behalf. Use for integration testing before mainnet. Blocks until deployed (polls up to 3 minutes) and returns the final contract address in one call. Returns: { ok, status, contractAddress, tokenName, tokenSymbol, chain, chainId, txHash, explorerUrl, tokenUrl, intentId }. On timeout returns status='timeout' with a status_url to poll manually via ava_get_deployment_status. On failure returns ok=false with errorMessage. For mainnet deployments use ava_create_token_intent — your agent signs with its own wallet and pays gas + $10 fee directly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Token name, e.g. 'My Protocol Token' | |
| chain | Yes | Only 'sepolia' is allowed. Mainnet requires ava_create_token_intent. | |
| apiKey | Yes | Your Ava Genesis API key (ava_live_...) | |
| supply | Yes | Initial supply as a number string, e.g. '1000000' | |
| symbol | Yes | Token symbol, e.g. 'MPT' (max 16 chars, uppercase) | |
| decimals | No | Decimals (default: 18) | |
| features | No | Optional feature flags (override template) | |
| template | No | Optional preset configuration | |
| callbackUrl | No | Webhook URL for status events (optional) | |
| ownerAddress | No | Wallet address that will receive the tokens and own the contract. If omitted, tokens remain with the platform deployer. | |
| idempotencyKey | No | Unique key to prevent duplicate deploys on retry (optional) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses blocking until deployed (polls up to 3 minutes), platform wallet signing, and return format including timeout with status_url. Could mention idempotency key behavior, but overall adequate.
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?
Single paragraph well-structured: main purpose, behavior, return format, timeout handling, and mainnet alternative. No wasted words; 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?
No output schema, but description explains return fields and error/timeout responses. Covers essential workflow for a deployment tool with 11 parameters. Could mention idempotency key usage, but not critical.
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 param descriptions. The description adds context for `chain` (only sepolia) and contrasts with mainnet, but does not significantly enrich param semantics 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?
The description clearly states the action (deploy), resource (ERC-20 token), environment (Sepolia testnet), and key characteristics (no wallet required, free). It contrasts with the mainnet sibling `ava_create_token_intent`, providing strong differentiation.
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 for integration testing before mainnet' and warns 'TESTNET ONLY'. Provides clear alternative for mainnet (`ava_create_token_intent`). Also describes blocking behavior, timeout, and fallback polling mechanism.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ava_get_deployment_statusAInspect
Poll the current status of a token deployment by its intentId. Use this after ava_deploy_token times out, or to check progress of an ava_create_token_intent flow. Returns: status ('deploying' | 'deployed' | 'failed'), contractAddress and explorer links when deployed, errorMessage on failure. Poll every 5-10 seconds. Most deployments complete within 60 seconds. Possible errors: insufficient fee sent, gas spike, RPC timeout — check errorMessage field.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | Yes | Your Ava Genesis API key (ava_live_...) used when the deployment was created | |
| intentId | Yes | The intentId returned by ava_deploy_token, ava_create_token_intent, or ava_confirm_deployment |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses return fields (status, contractAddress, explorer links, errorMessage) and possible error causes (insufficient fee, gas spike, RPC timeout). No annotations present, so description fully carries behavioral burden.
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?
Four sentences, each earn place: purpose, usage, return format, polling advice, error info. No redundancy.
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?
Adequately explains return values absent output schema, covers when to poll, expected results, and error handling. Complete for a polling status tool.
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 description adds context by linking intentId to return values of specific tools (ava_deploy_token, etc.), enhancing parameter understanding 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?
Clearly states 'Poll the current status of a token deployment by its intentId.' Distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing ava_deploy_token and ava_create_token_intent flows.
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 to use after ava_deploy_token times out or to check progress of ava_create_token_intent. Provides polling interval (5-10 seconds) and completion time (60 seconds).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ava_get_gas_pricesAInspect
Get real-time gas prices and total deployment cost estimates across all supported chains. Use this before deploying to pick the cheapest chain and avoid gas spikes. No API key required. Returns: gasPrice (gwei), estimatedDeployGas, totalCostEth, totalCostUsd, and platformFeeUsd for each chain. Data is fetched live from each chain's RPC — prices reflect current mempool conditions. Cache TTL: 15 seconds. If a chain RPC is unreachable, that chain is omitted from the response. Base and BNB Chain consistently have the lowest fees; Ethereum mainnet the highest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses no API key requirement, live data from RPCs, cache TTL of 15 seconds, behavior when a chain is unreachable, and relative fee comparisons. It could have explicitly stated it's read-only, but the nature is clear.
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 concise, front-loading the purpose and usage hint, then providing necessary behavioral details without any fluff. 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?
Given the tool has no input schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient information: return fields, data source, caching, error handling, and price comparisons. It covers all essential aspects for an agent to use it correctly.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not attempt to explain parameters.
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 explicitly states it retrieves real-time gas prices and total deployment cost estimates across all supported chains. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource, and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by being the only one focused on gas prices.
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 provides clear guidance: 'Use this before deploying to pick the cheapest chain and avoid gas spikes.' While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context and sibling names make it obvious that this is a preliminary query tool, not a deployment tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ava_list_my_tokensAInspect
List all ERC-20 tokens deployed via your API key, newest first. Use to audit past deployments, find a contract address, or check deployment history. Supports filtering by status and chain. Returns up to 50 results by default (max 200). Does not return tokens deployed by other API keys even on the same account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | Filter by chain. Omit to return tokens across all chains. | |
| limit | No | Number of results to return (default: 50, max: 200) | |
| apiKey | Yes | Your Ava Genesis API key (ava_live_...) | |
| status | No | Filter by deployment status. Omit to return all statuses. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully handles transparency. It discloses ordering (newest first), default and maximum result counts (50/200), filtering options, and scope limitation. It does not mention pagination or response format, but for a list endpoint the disclosures are sufficient.
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, each adding value. The first sentence gives the core action and ordering. The second provides use cases. The third adds constraints (scope, limits). No unnecessary words. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 4 well-documented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers everything needed: use cases, ordering, filtering, limits, scope. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal additional meaning, such as confirming default limit (50) and max (200), and stating 'Supports filtering by status and chain.' This slightly reinforces but does not significantly expand on 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?
The description clearly states 'List all ERC-20 tokens deployed via your API key, newest first' with specific use cases (audit, find address, check history). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ava_deploy_token and ava_get_deployment_status by focusing on listing multiple tokens scoped to the user's API key.
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 gives use cases (audit, find address, check history) and scoping rules ('Does not return tokens deployed by other API keys'). It also mentions filtering by status and chain. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with sibling tools, though 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.
ava_list_templatesAInspect
List all available token templates with their pre-configured feature flags. Call this before ava_simulate_token or ava_deploy_token to choose a template that matches your use case. Templates: utility (basic transferable token), governance (voting rights), reward (distributor-controlled), treasury (mintable reserve), community (burnable social token), meme (no restrictions, max supply). Returns: template name, description, and the exact feature flags each preset applies. Templates are read-only presets — individual flags can be overridden via the features parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It discloses that templates are read-only presets, that individual flags can be overridden via the features parameter, and describes the return structure (name, description, feature flags). This provides helpful behavioral context beyond a simple list.
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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second gives usage guidance, third lists templates, fourth describes return, fifth clarifies overridability. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff 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?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage, templates, and return details. It also mentions the relationship to sibling tools. It could explicitly note that no input is required, but the empty schema implies that. Minor gap, but overall 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?
The input schema has 0 parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns and how to use it, but since there are no parameters to document, no additional semantic information is needed. It appropriately describes the tool's purpose and 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', the resource 'token templates', and the content 'pre-configured feature flags'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by advising to call it before ava_simulate_token or ava_deploy_token. No ambiguity.
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 'Call this before ava_simulate_token or ava_deploy_token to choose a template that matches your use case.' Provides strong contextual guidance. Lacks explicit 'when not to use', but the positive guidance is clear and sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ava_simulate_tokenAInspect
Validate a token configuration and get a fee estimate without spending gas or deploying anything. Use this before ava_deploy_token or ava_create_token_intent to confirm the config is valid and see the exact ETH cost. Returns: estimated fee in ETH and USD, resolved feature flags, tier (Starter/Basic/Premium), and any validation errors. Does not create an intent or charge any fee.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Token name, e.g. 'My Protocol Token' | |
| chain | Yes | Target chain for fee estimate. Base and BNB Chain have lowest gas fees. | |
| apiKey | Yes | Your Ava Genesis API key (ava_live_...) | |
| supply | Yes | Initial token supply as a number string, e.g. '1000000'. Avoid scientific notation. | |
| symbol | Yes | Token ticker symbol, e.g. 'MPT' (max 16 chars, uppercase recommended) | |
| decimals | No | Token decimal places (default: 18). Use 6 for stablecoin-like tokens, 18 for standard ERC-20. | |
| features | No | Optional feature overrides. Any premium feature (mintable, pausable, blacklist, transferTax, antiWhale) triggers the $50 tier. Burnable alone is $20 Basic tier. | |
| template | No | Optional preset that pre-fills feature flags. Use ava_list_templates to see each preset's config. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: no gas spent, no deployment, no intent creation, and returns fee estimates, feature flags, tier, and validation errors. This is comprehensive and transparent.
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 plus a list of return values. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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's complexity (8 params, nested objects) and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what it does, when to use, what it returns, and what it doesn't do. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add much beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it only provides usage context. No extra semantics for individual parameters.
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 validates token configuration and provides fee estimates without gas cost. It explicitly mentions using it before ava_deploy_token or ava_create_token_intent, distinguishing it from those siblings.
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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use this before ava_deploy_token or ava_create_token_intent to confirm the config is valid'. It also clarifies what the tool does not do (create intent or charge fee), helping agents decide when to use it.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!