AgentRiskofficial
F
licenseNot graded
qualityB
maintenancePre-Trade Security & Risk Analysis Layer for Autonomous DeFi Agents on Base using x402 protocol.
-
AgentData - Executable Liquidity / Exit-Cost
Server Details
Size-aware exit cost, depeg risk & liquidity fragility for a Base token (x402, testnet).
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- phenicea/agentdata
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Available Tools
1 toolliquidity_exit_costAInspect
Size-aware exit cost, depeg risk, and liquidity fragility for a token on Base. Given a token and a sell size, returns the realized cost of exiting (price impact + fee, in bps and units), the best route across venues, an aggregated fragility score, and — for pegged assets — a depeg-risk score. Computed deterministically from on-chain AMM state, so the result is reproducible and auditable. Three tiers by compute depth (default 'risk'): 'quote' = best-route exit cost for one size; 'risk' = exit cost + fragility (+ depeg for pegged tokens); 'deep' = adds a multi-size exit-cost curve, max-size-before-cost thresholds, and an internal cross-check. Pricing per call (USDC): quote = $0, risk = $0, deep = $0. Status: testnet/preview — payment runs over the x402 HTTP surface, not this tool.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pool | No | Optional: restrict the computation to a single pool id. | |
| size | Yes | Sell size in human token units (> 0). | |
| tier | No | Pricing/compute tier. 'quote' = best-route exit cost only; 'risk' (default) adds fragility + depeg; 'deep' adds a multi-size exit-cost curve and cross-check. | risk |
| token | Yes | Token symbol/address to exit (sell), e.g. 'WETH'. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| size | Yes | |
| tier | Yes | |
| depeg | No | |
| route | Yes | |
| token | Yes | |
| network | Yes | testnet | mainnet |
| exit_cost | Yes | |
| fragility | No | |
| cross_check | No | |
| exit_cost_curve | No | |
| max_size_before_cost | No |
TDQS
A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers determinism ('Computed deterministically from on-chain AMM state'), reproducibility, return content, pricing (all $0), and status ('testnet/preview') with a note that payment runs over x402, not this tool. This is comprehensive transparency for a computation 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 description is compact and efficient, with the primary purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds value: outputs, computation method, tiers, pricing, and status. No unnecessary filler or repetition of schema details.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, output schema present), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return concepts, computational basis, tier options, and operational status. The output schema handles detailed return fields, so the description's high-level output summary is sufficient. No obvious gaps.
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 already has 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful depth by explaining what each tier returns in terms of outputs (e.g., quote = best-route exit cost, risk adds fragility and depeg, deep adds a multi-size curve). This goes beyond the schema's simple enum labels and directly aids parameter selection.
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 states the tool computes size-aware exit cost, depeg risk, and liquidity fragility for a token on Base. It specifies the verb 'returns' and lists concrete outputs (price impact + fee, best route, fragility score, depeg-risk score), distinguishing it from a generic liquidity tool. No sibling tools exist to differentiate, but the scope and resource are explicit.
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 provides clear context on when to use each compute tier ('quote', 'risk', 'deep') with detailed explanations of what each returns. It also notes the default tier and pricing per call. While it does not explicitly state 'use when' or name alternatives (no siblings), the tier guidance effectively tells the agent how to choose the appropriate depth for the task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
1 tool update
- First observed
liquidity_exit_cost
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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 Connectors
DeFi pool yield+security intelligence & token/contract risk scanner. USDC on Base via x402.
R_net LP risk evaluator for DeFAI agents. IL + Breakeven Corridor O(1). L402 Lightning paywall.
Collateral exit liquidity, liquidation tape and peg data. 51 tools, paid in USDC via x402.
521Base mainnet analysis: contract audits, transfer simulation, token pricing. Paid via x402.
Related MCP Servers
hyperd-mcpofficial
AlicenseAqualityCmaintenancePre-trade DeFi intelligence for AI agents. 20 paid x402 endpoints, USDC on Base.23581MIT- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceArbitrage detection across DEXes on Base. Scan pairs, detect price gaps, estimate profit, simulate flash loan routes.7621MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceReal-time DEX token momentum, orderbook liquidity depth, and whale flows on Base Mainnet gated with gasless x402 micropayments.3MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The tool's description clearly delineates its singular purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
With a single tool, naming consistency is trivially maintained. The name 'liquidity_exit_cost' is descriptive and follows a clear noun_noun pattern.
Tool Count3/5
A single tool feels thin for a server purportedly focused on 'Executable Liquidity / Exit-Cost'. The tool itself provides multiple tiers of analysis, but the overall surface area is minimal, falling into the borderline category.
Completeness4/5
The tool covers exit cost, depeg risk, liquidity fragility, and multiple depth tiers (quote/risk/deep), addressing the core domain effectively. Minor gaps might include none obvious for its narrow scope, though it lacks separate endpoints for individual metrics.