Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

qmax

by io.github.profitphil
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Who has been selling an asset, and what they paid

qmax_get_sellers
Read-onlyIdempotent

For the last 7 days: the wallets that sold the asset on QX or QSwap, how long each had held the units (each unit sold is matched, first in first out, to the purchase it came from), what they paid and whether they sold above or below that, with a plain-language reading ("what the numbers say"). Read from the public Qubic archive, so the first call for an asset starts the reading and answers status "working" with its progress and what is known so far; a reading takes a minute or two, after which the status is "ready" and the answer is kept for six hours. The chain shows who sold and what they paid, not why. Free.

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_sellers"
  }
}

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

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the two-phase async pattern (first call returns 'working' with progress, a reading takes a minute or two, then 'ready'), six-hour result caching, sourcing from the public Qubic archive, and the explicit limitation that the chain shows who sold and what they paid but not why. It also notes the tool is free.

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?

Front-loaded with the answer (the last-7-days seller breakdown), then the async/caching mechanics and the free/public-archive note. The opening sentence is very long and stacks several clauses, but every clause carries real information and nothing is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: wallets, per-unit hold duration, amount paid, above/below sale, and a plain-language reading. It also covers the async lifecycle, caching window, and data limitations, leaving no material gap for 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema (asset symbol, case-insensitive, points to qmax_list_assets). The description only refers to 'the asset' generically, adding no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a precise verb+resource: wallets that sold a given asset on QX or QSwap over the last 7 days, with FIFO-matched cost basis and a plain-language verdict. That scope is clearly distinct from siblings like qmax_get_tape, qmax_get_flow and qmax_get_wallet_ledger, but none of those alternatives are named, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 description implies when this tool applies (you want seller-side, cost-basis analysis) and explains the async workflow, including that the first call returns status 'working'. However it never states when to prefer it over qmax_get_tape, qmax_get_flow or qmax_get_wallet_ledger, nor any exclusions.

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