Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

qmax

by io.github.profitphil
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check an asset for QX/QSwap arbitrage

qmax_check_arbitrage
Read-onlyIdempotent

Searches, live and at full depth, for a profitable buy-on-one-market, sell-on-the-other loop after every venue fee, and returns the most profitable size or null. It is two separate transactions, so the second leg can fill worse than shown; this is a snapshot, not a guarantee. Only assets on both markets can have one. Free on qmax.exchange; a QMax server run with metered billing can charge a small fee for a found result.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "asset": "<asset>"
    },
    "name": "qmax_check_arbitrage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetYesAsset symbol, for example CFB or QDOGE (case does not matter). qmax_list_assets lists the tradable symbols.
max_cost_quNoMost QU to put in (a budget); the search returns the best loop that fits
min_profit_quNoOnly an opportunity with at least this profit (QU)
min_profit_pctNoOnly one with at least this profit as a percentage of the QU put in

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / asset / description
      Previous value: -"Asset symbol, for example CFB or QDOGE (case does not matter). Use qmax_list_assets to find one."New value: +"Asset symbol, for example CFB or QDOGE (case does not matter). qmax_list_assets lists the tradable symbols."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, yet the description still adds value beyond them: the result is 'a snapshot, not a guarantee' and execution is two separate transactions so the second leg can fill worse than shown. It also discloses the pricing/billing model, which no annotation covers.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the execution-risk caveat, then cost. Nothing is redundant, though the first sentence is clause-dense and the fee sentence is tangential to invocation decisions.

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?

With no output schema, the description does carry the return contract ('the most profitable size or null') and the execution caveat. It leaves the returned payload shape somewhat unspecified, but for a single-result search tool the essentials are covered.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (including the three filter thresholds) are already documented in the schema. The description only adds the notion that the search returns the most profitable size fitting the budget, which is marginal beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: searches live and at full depth for a profitable buy-on-one-market / sell-on-the-other loop net of venue fees, returning the best size or null. That is distinguishable at a glance from sibling quote tools like qmax_swap_quote or qmax_get_price_history, which serve single-venue pricing rather than a cross-venue loop.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('Only assets on both markets can have one') and a cost condition (free on qmax.exchange, possible metered fee on some QMax servers), which helps an agent decide whether to call it. It never explicitly names an alternative or a when-not-to-use case, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All qmax toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources