Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

qmax

by io.github.profitphil
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

One QSwap pool's live state

qmax_get_liquidity_pool
Read-onlyIdempotent

A QSwap pool's reserves (QU and tokens), total liquidity units and price, read from the contract. It shows how deep a pool is. Adding or removing liquidity each cost a flat 100,000 QU on top of any deposit. Read-only.

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_get_liquidity_pool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetYesAsset symbol, for example CFB or QDOGE (case does not matter). qmax_list_assets lists the tradable symbols.

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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is largely covered. The description adds that data is read from the contract and lists the returned fields, plus a liquidity-cost note, but it does not expand much on failure modes or exact response shape.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the returned data, which is the most important information. The final "Read-only" sentence is redundant with annotations, and the liquidity-cost sentence is somewhat tangential for a read-only pool lookup, but overall it remains efficient.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the returned values: reserves, total liquidity units, and price. It could be slightly more precise about the exact response shape, but it is complete enough to support correct invocation.

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%, and the single asset parameter is fully documented with examples and a pointer to qmax_list_assets. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource and contents: a QSwap pool's reserves in QU and tokens, total liquidity units, and price, read from the contract. It adds a useful framing, "how deep a pool is," but does not explicitly distinguish this from similar siblings such as qmax_pool_detail or qmax_get_liquidity_positions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase "shows how deep a pool is" implies the use case of assessing pool depth, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against sibling tools. The note about liquidity add/remove costs is related context, not guidance for selecting this tool.

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