Skip to main content
Glama

EchoLedger

by io.github.icmoore

SimulateBalancerMove

Project a 2-asset Balancer weighted-pool LP position's value at a hypothetical price change from the CURRENT pool state. The shock is applied to the base-token price in opp units; IL depends on both the shock magnitude and the pool's weights. Returns new value in opp-numeraire, IL at the simulated price, and percentage change.

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.
pool_typeYesWhich protocol the pool at pool_address belongs to. This tool accepts only balancer (2-asset weighted pool).
lp_init_amtYesPool shares held by this position, in human units. Must be > 0.
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.
price_change_pctNoFractional price change from current spot. Must be > -1.0. Example: -0.30 models a 30% drop in base-in-opp terms.
price_change_pctsNoOptional batch form of 'price_change_pct': an array of values to evaluate in a single call. The pool is read once and the result is an array with one entry per element, in input order. Supply EITHER 'price_change_pct' (single) OR 'price_change_pcts' (batch), not both. Max 256 entries.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses how the shock is applied (base-token price in opp units), what influences IL (weights), and what the return values are. It does not explicitly state that the operation is non-mutating/read-only, which is a minor gap for a simulation tool.

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 text is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the mechanics and return values. Every sentence adds necessary detail with no filler.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it computes, the key dependencies, and the return structure. It would benefit from explicit mention of alternatives and edge cases, but it is largely complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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 conceptual value by explaining that the price shock is in base-token/opp units and that IL depends on pool weights, which connects the parameters to the underlying model. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 ('Project') and resource ('2-asset Balancer weighted-pool LP position'), clearly separating this from sibling stableswap or generic price simulators. It states exactly what the tool does: simulate value under a hypothetical price change from the current pool state.

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 implies use for Balancer 2-asset weighted pools and explains the context (price shock, IL). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like SimulateStableswapMove or SimulatePriceMove, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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