paladin-swap
Server Details
Multi-aggregator swap router for AI agents on Base. 10 bps fee. MCP-native, non-custodial.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- paladinfi/paladin-swap-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- paladin-swap-mcp
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: health/config, swap quoting, and a sample trust check preview. No overlap in functionality.
All tools use snake_case, but the pattern varies: 'swap_health' and 'swap_quote' start with the verb 'swap', while 'trust_check_preview' starts with a noun. Slight inconsistency but still readable.
With only 3 tools for a DeFi swap router, the surface is too thin. Missing core operations like actual swap execution or real trust checks means it feels incomplete for the domain.
The tool set lacks a real trust check (only a sample preview) and any swap execution tool (though quote provides calldata, no submission tool). Significant gaps for production use.
Available Tools
3 toolsswap_healthAInspect
Return the swap router's health + configuration (fee recipient, bps, supported chains).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description indicates read operation but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or side effects. As a pure read, it's safe, but behavioral context is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, well-structured sentence with key information front-loaded. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and presence of output schema, description sufficiently covers tool's purpose and return contents. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters in schema, so baseline 4 applies. Description does not add parameter info, which is acceptable given zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool returns health and configuration (fee recipient, bps, supported chains). Distinguishes from sibling swap_quote which presumably provides quotes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage for health/configuration but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance. Sibling swap_quote provides contrast but not directly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
swap_quoteAInspect
Get a competitive multi-aggregator swap quote with ready-to-execute calldata. PaladinFi does not represent any returned route as the best available across the broader DeFi market.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taker | Yes | Wallet address that will execute the swap (the agent's wallet) | |
| chainId | No | EVM chain ID (default 8453 = Base). Currently only Base is supported. | |
| buyToken | Yes | ERC20 contract address to buy (e.g. WETH on Base = 0x4200000000000000000000000000000000000006) | |
| sellToken | Yes | ERC20 contract address to sell (e.g. USDC on Base = 0x833589fCD6eDb6E08f4c7C32D4f71b54bdA02913) | |
| sellAmount | Yes | Amount to sell in smallest unit (decimal string; e.g. "1000000000" = 1000 USDC) | |
| slippageBps | No | Optional slippage tolerance in basis points (default from provider) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions 'ready-to-execute calldata' implying a read operation, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. The caveat about best route adds some transparency but is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate given the presence of an output schema and detailed parameter descriptions in the schema. However, it omits important context such as the chainId limitation (only Base supported) and does not reiterate prerequisites or warnings beyond the market caveat.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter in detail. The tool description adds general context (multi-aggregator, calldata) but does not enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('competitive multi-aggregator swap quote with ready-to-execute calldata'), clearly identifying the tool's function and distinguishing it from its sibling 'swap_health'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context by stating it returns a quote with calldata and includes a caveat about not representing the best route. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'swap_health' or what the prerequisites are.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
trust_check_previewAInspect
Get a SAMPLE-FIXTURE preview of the PaladinFi token-contract trust check.
⚠️ NOT a real evaluation. Returns fixed sample data with _preview: true,
every factor marked real: false, and recommendation prefixed sample-
(sample-allow / sample-warn / sample-block). Use this for shape-testing
your integration; DO NOT use the verdict to gate real swaps, signing, or any
production agent decision.
Programmatic safety check: before consuming any field of this response,
agents should test resp.get("_real") is True (top-level) — preview always
returns _real: false. Substring-matching on recommendation (e.g.
"allow" in resp["trust"]["recommendation"]) will INCORRECTLY match
sample-allow; use exact-equality (resp["trust"]["recommendation"] == "allow")
or test the _real field instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ERC20 contract address to evaluate (Base 8453 only currently; must match `^0x[a-fA-F0-9]{40}$`) | |
| chainId | No | EVM chain ID (default 8453 = Base; only chain supported) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description fully discloses that results are fixed sample data with _preview: true, real: false, and sample-prefixed recommendations. Warns against substring matching.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear warning block. Slightly long but front-loaded with key points. Could be trimmed slightly but overall good.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given output schema exists, description covers safety checks, limitations, and proper usage. Complete for a preview tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so description adds no new meaning beyond what's already in schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it's a SAMPLE-FIXTURE preview, not a real evaluation. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like swap_health and swap_quote by focusing on trust check preview.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says use for shape-testing only, not for real decisions. Provides programmatic safety check to avoid misuse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.