Skip to main content
Glama

EchoLedger

by io.github.icmoore

SimulateStableswapMove

Project a 2-asset Curve-style Stableswap LP position's value at a hypothetical depeg from the CURRENT pool state. The shock multiplies the pool's current alpha by (1 + price_change_pct); at high A, large shocks may be physically unreachable and in that case new_value, il_at_new_price, and value_change_pct are returned as null. Values are in peg-numeraire.

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 stableswap (2-asset plain Curve pool).
lp_init_amtYesLP tokens 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 shock applied to current alpha. Must be > -1.0. Simulated alpha = current_alpha * (1 + price_change_pct).
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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains the shock formula (alpha multiplied by (1+price_change_pct)), discloses that large shocks may be physically unreachable and returns nulls for certain fields, and states units are in peg-numeraire. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'project' and 'simulate' strongly imply no mutation.

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 essential behavioral detail (formula, null case, units). Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description names key outputs (new_value, il_at_new_price, value_change_pct), their units, and null behavior. The batch-vs-single mode is left to the schema, which already documents it thoroughly. Minor gap: no mention of when the batch form should be preferred, but the schema covers the mechanics.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by defining price_change_pct's effect on alpha and explaining the null-output edge case, which goes beyond the schema. It correctly avoids restating parameter-by-parameter details already available in 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 opens with a specific verb 'Project' and clearly identifies the resource: a 2-asset Curve-style Stableswap LP position. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by scoping to Curve stableswap and specifying the hypothetical depeg scenario 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 conveys a clear use case—simulating a depeg shock on a stableswap LP—and states it operates on the CURRENT pool state. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like SimulateBalancerMove or exclusion criteria, so it lacks full when-to-use vs when-not-to-use 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