Skip to main content
Glama

EchoLedger

by io.github.icmoore

AnalyzePosition

Analyze why a Uniswap V2 or V3 LP position is gaining or losing money. Decomposes PnL into impermanent loss, accumulated fees, and net result, with optional real APR if a holding period is supplied. Returns current value, hold value, IL percentage, fee income, net PnL, real APR, and a diagnosis label.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rpc_urlYesAn Ethereum (or L2) JSON-RPC URL used to read live pool state. Required; supplied by you per call (BYO-RPC) and may carry your provider key. The endpoint stores and logs nothing — the URL is never persisted or written to logs.
chain_idNoOptional guard. If supplied and the RPC reports a different chain id, the call is rejected. Defaults to 1 (Ethereum mainnet) conceptually; omit to skip the check.
lwr_tickNoLower tick of the position (V3 positions only; null for V2).
upr_tickNoUpper tick of the position (V3 positions only; null for V2).
pool_typeYesWhich protocol the pool at pool_address belongs to. This tool accepts uniswap_v2 | uniswap_v3.
entry_x_amtYesAmount of token0 originally deposited at position entry.
entry_y_amtYesAmount of token1 originally deposited at position entry.
lp_init_amtYesLP token amount held by the position (position size in human units).
block_numberNoOptional block number to pin the read to a historical block. Omit to read the latest block.
pool_addressYesOn-chain address of the pool/pair to analyze (Uniswap V2/V3 pair, Balancer weighted pool, or Curve stableswap pool). Required. Lowercase, uppercase, or checksum casing all work.
holding_period_daysNoOptional holding period in days. If supplied, real_apr is annualized from net_pnl.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates the non-mutating analysis nature by using 'Analyze' and detailing the return fields (current value, hold value, IL percentage, fee income, net PnL, real APR, diagnosis label). It also explains conditional behavior (real APR depends on holding period). It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or discuss side effects, but the verb and output list imply a safe read operation.

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 two sentences front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a concise breakdown of the decomposition and outputs. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (11 params, no output schema), the description provides a clear overview and enumerates return values, which is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect. It lacks edge-case context (e.g., out-of-range ticks, schema inconsistency in pool_address mentioning Balancer/Curve), but the main description resolves ambiguity by restricting to Uniswap V2/V3. The schema covers parameters thoroughly, so the description is nearly complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'holding period' which is already described in the schema. All parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema, so the description’s lack of parameter-specific detail is acceptable but does not enhance or clarify beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze') and clearly identifies the resource (Uniswap V2/V3 LP positions). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the protocol scope, and it details the analysis breakdown (IL, fees, net PnL) and outputs, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

The description clearly states when to use the tool: for analyzing Uniswap V2 or V3 LP positions. It implies the protocol-specific scope, which differentiates it from sibling tools like AnalyzeBalancerLP and AnalyzeStableswapLP. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so it misses the top score.

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

All EchoLedger toolsInspect
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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are mostly distinct by protocol and action, but AnalyzePosition and the protocol-specific Analyze*LP tools overlap in purpose, as do SimulatePriceMove and Simulate*Move. Descriptions clearly differentiate them, so an agent can select correctly with careful reading, but the generic versus specific split introduces some ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent VerbNoun pattern (Analyze, Assess, Build, Calculate, Check, Detect, Simulate) with no mixing of conventions. The naming is uniform and predictable across the entire set.

Tool Count5/5

11 tools is well within the ideal range for a specialized LP analysis server. Each tool covers a distinct function across protocols, and none feel redundant or superfluous. The count is well-scoped for the server's purpose.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of LP analysis: position PnL analysis, price simulations, depeg risk, slippage, pool health, rug detection, and state serialization. Minor gaps exist, such as fee attribution for Balancer and Curve pools and a generic simulate tool for all protocols, but these are protocol limitations or acceptable omissions.

Resources