Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

qmax

by io.github.profitphil
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

How far apart QX and QSwap prices were

qmax_venue_premium
Read-onlyIdempotent

Hour by hour, the gap between the asset's QX and QSwap prices (positive = QSwap dearer) and how often it was wider than the trading costs for a trade of 'reference_qu'. This is an UPPER BOUND on arbitrage, not a profit: it uses hourly average prices, so it leaves out the QX bid-ask spread (often wider than the costs) and the delay between the two transactions. Returns { bothVenues, breakEvenPct, points, summary, note }.

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_venue_premium"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetYesAsset symbol, for example CFB or QDOGE (case does not matter). qmax_list_assets lists the tradable symbols.
rangeNoHow far back to measure the price gap30d
reference_quNoTrade size in QU used to work out the break-even gap (default 10,000,000)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / range / description
      Added value: +"How far back to measure the price gap"
  2. 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."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that the result is an upper bound, not a profit; explains why (hourly averages); and names omitted factors such as the QX bid-ask spread and transaction delay. This is exactly the kind of interpretive caveat an agent needs.

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 front-loads the core measurement before the caveats and return fields. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 appropriately lists the returned fields and explains the key break-even concept and limitations. It could go slightly further in explaining fields like points or note, but it is largely complete for an analytical read-only tool.

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%, so the input schema already documents asset, range, and reference_qu. The description reinforces reference_qu's role in trading costs and break-even, but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema; baseline 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 states a specific measured quantity: the hourly gap between QX and QSwap prices and how often it exceeds trading costs for a reference trade size. It is clear what the tool computes, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from qmax_check_arbitrage or other arbitrage-related siblings.

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 historical measurement of arbitrage upper bounds through the phrase 'Hour by hour' and the caveat that this is not profit. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus qmax_check_arbitrage or other alternatives, so routing relies on inference.

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