SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

Estimated output, price impact and minimum output

agent_intel_dex_depth_slippage_calculator

Read-only

Estimated output, price impact and minimum output for a swap in one DEX pair, using the pair's reserves from DexScreener and a constant-product (x*y=k) model with a fee. Exact for constant-product pools (for example Aerodrome volatile pools, Uniswap V2 style); for concentrated-liquidity pools (labelled v3 or v4) it is only an approximation. Raydium is not covered. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pair": "<pair>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "agent_intel_dex_depth_slippage_calculator"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pair`	Yes	Pair (pool) address
`side`	No	sell = you give the base token; buy = you give the quote token (default sell)
`chain`	No	DexScreener chain name, e.g. base, ethereum, arbitrum (default base)
`amount`	Yes	Amount you give, in that token's units (positive number)
`feePct`	No	Pool fee in percent, 0 to 5 (default 0.3)
`slippagePct`	No	Your tolerance in percent, 0 to 50 (default 0.5)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dex`	No
`pair`	No
`side`	No
`chain`	No
`model`	No
`feePct`	No
`source`	No
`spotOut`	No
`amountIn`	No
`reserves`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`baseSymbol`	No
`quoteSymbol`	No
`slippagePct`	No
`estimatedOut`	No
`priceImpactPct`	No
`minOutAtSlippage`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations by disclosing the pricing mechanism ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc, failed calls free) and the accuracy envelope of the underlying model. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loads the operation, then layers model accuracy caveats and payment terms in a tight sequence. Every sentence carries information an agent needs, with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described. Combined with the disclosed data source, model accuracy limits and payment terms, the definition is complete for a read-only calculation tool.

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 parameters are already documented and baseline is 3. The description adds model context that implies how feePct and slippagePct are used, but gives no per-parameter detail 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?

States a specific computation (estimated output, price impact, minimum output) on a specific resource (one DEX pair) and names its data source (DexScreener reserves) and model (x*y=k with fee). An agent can distinguish this from liquidity or safety siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear applicability conditions: exact for constant-product pools like Aerodrome volatile or Uniswap V2, only approximate for v3/v4, and Raydium not covered. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the unsupported cases, so it is clear context without explicit routing.

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

All SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?