AgentData - Executable Liquidity / Exit-Cost
Server Details
Size-aware exit cost, depeg risk & liquidity fragility for a Base token (x402, testnet).
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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 4.6/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion or overlap with other tools.
The single tool name 'liquidity_exit_cost' follows a clear noun_noun pattern that accurately describes its function, with no other tools to create inconsistency.
With only one tool, the server's functionality is extremely limited. While the tool is detailed, a typical server should offer multiple tools to cover related operations, making this count inappropriately low.
The tool covers exit cost computation with multiple tiers, but lacks complementary tools such as token listing, raw pool data, or comparison features, leaving notable gaps for a liquidity analysis domain.
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.
| 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
| 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 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the computation is deterministic from on-chain AMM state, reproducible, and auditable. It details the three tiers, mentions depeg risk only for pegged assets, and states the tool is in testnet/preview with payment outside the tool.
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?
The description is around 8 sentences, well-organized with the core purpose first, then tiers, deterministic nature, and pricing/status. Each sentence adds value, though the pricing section could be slightly more concise.
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 the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It fully covers the tool's behavior: what each tier returns, deterministic computation, and pricing limitations. It also addresses fragility and depeg conditions, making it complete for the tool's complexity.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining tier options in more detail, mentioning the optional pool parameter, and giving examples like 'WETH'. This enhances understanding beyond schema, earning a 4.
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 clearly states the tool computes size-aware exit cost, depeg risk, and liquidity fragility for a token on Base. It specifies the verb (returns), the resources (cost, fragility, depeg), and the domain (token on Base), distinguishing it from potential siblings through tier details and deterministic computation.
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 explains when to use each tier (quote, risk, deep) and notes pricing (all free) and that payment is handled via x402, not this tool. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but given the specificity, the guidance is clear and adequate.
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!