Skip to main content
Glama

EchoLedger

by io.github.icmoore

SimulatePriceMove

Project a Uniswap V2 or V3 LP position's value at a hypothetical price change from the CURRENT pool state (not from entry). A price_change_pct of -0.30 asks 'what if price drops 30% from here'. Returns new value, IL at the simulated price, and percentage change in position value. Fee projection is not modeled (always null).

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 only; null for V2).
upr_tickNoUpper tick of the position (V3 only; null for V2).
pool_typeYesWhich protocol the pool at pool_address belongs to. This tool accepts uniswap_v2 | uniswap_v3.
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.
position_size_lpYesLP tokens held by the position, in human units. Must be > 0.
price_change_pctNoFractional price change from current price. Must be > -1.0. Example: -0.30 models a 30% drop.
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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses a key limitation (fee projection is not modeled and always null), explains that the simulation starts from the current pool state, and lists the return fields (new value, IL, and percentage change). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic function.

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 core purpose, includes a concrete example (-0.30), and ends with the relevant limitation about fees. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, input semantics via an example, return values, and a limitation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., how V2 vs V3 are handled differently, edge cases in batch), but the description is substantially complete and actionable for an agent.

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% with rich per-parameter explanations (e.g., batch form, chain_id guard, rpc_url privacy, V3 tick constraints). The description adds high-level semantics about the simulation and output but does not need to restate parameter details, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'project' with a clear resource ('Uniswap V2 or V3 LP position's value') and explicitly defines the scope ('from the CURRENT pool state (not from entry)'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like SimulateBalancerMove and SimulateStableswapMove by naming Uniswap V2/V3, and the example clarifies the simulation semantics.

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 indicates this tool is for Uniswap V2/V3 LP positions and emphasizes the simulation is from the current state, not entry, which guides when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the protocol scoping and example are sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage relative to sibling tools.

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