A
license-
qualityB
maintenanceDeFi execution layer for AI agents - swap, zap in/out of LP, route across AMMs on 5 EVM chains.
168
7
MIT
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
- 1
- 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.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
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.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A3.8/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: health/config, quote with calldata, and a sample trust-check preview. The preview is explicitly marked as sample, eliminating any ambiguity with a real trust check, though no real trust check tool exists.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tool names use snake_case with a consistent style: 'swap_health', 'swap_quote', and 'trust_check_preview' follow a predictable pattern of domain prefix + action/noun. The use of 'trust' instead of 'swap' for the third tool is a minor deviation but logical given its purpose.
Tool Count3/5
At 3 tools, the server is on the low end of the typical range. For a swap server, this feels a bit thin, especially since one tool is only a preview and not a full feature. However, it's not ridiculously small, and the tools cover some essential aspects.
Completeness2/5
The server lacks a core swap execution tool—it only provides quotes with calldata, leaving the actual transaction broadcasting to the agent. Additionally, the trust check is only a sample preview, not a real evaluation. These gaps make the tool surface incomplete for a production swap server.
Available Tools
3 toolsswap_healthSwap Service HealthARead-onlyInspect
Return the swap router's health + configuration (fee recipient, bps, supported chains).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds the specific output (fee recipient, bps, supported chains) but does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or other side effects. It meets the baseline but offers limited extra behavioral context.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Return' and resource. It lists key output details without any redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with an existing output schema, the description fully conveys what the tool does. It doesn't need to explain return values in detail because the output schema provides that, and the annotations cover safety aspects.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for no parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.
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 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'the swap router's health + configuration', with concrete output fields (fee recipient, bps, supported chains). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like swap_quote and 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no 'use this when' context or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
swap_quoteGet Swap QuoteARead-onlyInspect
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.
ParametersJSON Schema
| 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
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds the value of mentioning the returned route is not guaranteed to be best across the broader market and that calldata is included. However, it does not expand on potential execution details or provider-specific behavior beyond this caveat.
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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only essential caveat information. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?
Given the presence of an output schema and clear annotations, the description is reasonably complete for a quote-fetching tool. It includes a relevant disclaimer about route representativeness, but it stops short of explaining how the returned calldata might be used or when the quote might expire, which would be useful context.
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?
The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it also does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation.
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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving a swap quote, using the specific verb 'Get' and naming the resource ('multi-aggregator swap quote') plus a key differentiator ('ready-to-execute calldata'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like swap_health and trust_check_preview, which focus on health checks and previews rather than quote generation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not name sibling tools or provide exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and general context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
trust_check_previewToken Trust Check (Preview)ARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
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.
For REAL evaluations (3 paths, cheapest -> most-featured):
Free wallet-OFAC screen (v0.11.77+):
POST https://swap.paladinfi.com/v1/trust-check/ofacanonymous, rate-limited (1 r/s + burst 3), runs only the OFAC SDN wallet-screen leg with real data (
_real: true). Returns the samerecommendation: "allow" | "block"shape as the full endpoint (nowarnstate — OFAC is binary). Useful for agents that just need sanctions screening without the full composition. Includes_paid_endpoint_infoupgrade hint pointing at the paid endpoint. Wallet-OFAC scope — the Treasury SDN list carries wallet/EOA addresses, not token contracts. Use the paid endpoint for token-contract risk.
Install
@paladinfi/eliza-plugin-trust(ElizaOS) or@paladinfi/agentkit-actions(Coinbase AgentKit). Both handle x402 payment ($0.001 USDC per call on Base) automatically and expose apaladin_trust_checkaction to your agent.OR call
POST https://swap.paladinfi.com/v1/trust-checkvia an x402-capable HTTP client. See https://paladinfi.com/trust-check/ for full integration docs.
The paid endpoint composes live OFAC SDN screening (refreshed daily from the
Treasury XML feed), GoPlus token security, Etherscan source verification, and
PaladinFi anomaly + lookalike heuristics into a single
recommendation: "allow" | "warn" | "block" verdict.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ERC20 contract address to evaluate (Base 8453 only currently; must match `^0x[a-fA-F0-9]{40}$`) | |
| chainId | No | EVM chain ID (default 8453 = Base; only chain supported) |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description thoroughly explains the tool's behavior beyond annotations: it always returns `_preview: true`, every factor has `real: false`, and recommendation is prefixed with `sample-`. It also warns against substring matching and instructs to check `_real`. This adds significant context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, with no contradiction.
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?
Although the description is long, it is well-structured with clear warnings, bullet points, and sections. Every sentence serves a purpose: explaining the preview nature, safety check, and alternatives. It is front-loaded with the critical caveat, making it highly effective despite its length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers all necessary context: what the tool returns, how to validate the response, and alternatives for real use. Given the tool's simple scope (fixured preview) and the presence of an output schema, this description is fully complete and leaves no ambiguity.
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 coverage is 100%, and the description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The address and chainId descriptions in the schema are complete, so the description's lack of parameter detail is acceptable per the baseline rule.
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 'Get a SAMPLE-FIXTURE preview of the PaladinFi token-contract trust check,' which clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from real evaluations and sibling tools (swap_health, swap_quote) by emphasizing it is only for shape-testing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this for shape-testing your integration; DO NOT use the verdict to gate real swaps, signing, or any production agent decision.' It also provides clear alternatives for real evaluations, including the free OFAC endpoint, plugins, and the paid endpoint, with a note on the free endpoint's limitations.
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!
Related MCP Servers
- Alicense-qualityDmaintenanceMCP (Model Context Protocol) server for the MAIN DEX on Base. Provides AI agents (Claude, Cursor, etc.) with tools to interact with the protocol: swap tokens, manage liquidity, enter/exit ALM strategies(10% APY), and more.MIT
- Alicense-qualityDmaintenanceAI payment router for routing across 300+ LLM models with per-request USDC settlement on Base and Tempo, session budgets, and x402 payments via the MCP protocol.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server providing cross-chain swaps between Solana and Base for AI agents paid for via x402 micropayments.3532MIT
Try in Browser
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.