Skip to main content
Glama

get_pair_limits_and_fees

Read-only

Inspects on-chain minimum deposit floors, maximum pool caps, network miner fees, and liquidity reserve depth for any supported pair without calculating conversion amounts.

USAGE GUIDELINES:

  • USE WHEN: Determining whether a planned transaction meets provider thresholds, verifying miner fees, or checking pool liquidity before prompting user for an amount.

  • DO NOT USE: Calculating live conversion quantities or generating order links (use 'get_swap_quote').

PARAMETER DYNAMICS & EDGE CASES:

  • Distinct Asset Rule: 'from' and 'to' must represent distinct blockchain networks; identical inputs (e.g., BTC to BTC) are rejected with a structured error object.

  • Directional Asymmetry: Minimum deposit floors and pool reserves for asset A-to-B differ from B-to-A due to destination blockchain miner fee structures ('network_fee') and independent pool balances.

  • Ticker Matching: Input symbols are case-insensitive. Specify 'USDT' for TRC20 routing or 'USDTERC' for Ethereum mainnet settlement. Unlisted tickers return an error referring to 'list_supported_currencies'.

BEHAVIOR, TIMEOUTS & CACHING:

  • Strictly read-only with zero state changes.

  • Edge-cached for 30 seconds.

  • Returns JSON error object if pair is unsupported or liquidity feed is unreachable.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesOutbound asset symbol determining the destination network miner fee ('network_fee') deducted at settlement. Must differ from 'from'.
fromYesInbound asset symbol defining the source blockchain protocol and deposit reserve requirements. Must differ from 'to'.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNo
fromNo
rateNo
providerNo
rate_typeNo
max_amountNo
min_amountNo
updated_atNo
network_feeNo
pool_reserveNo
quote_validity_secondsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / from / description
      Previous value: -"Source cryptocurrency ticker symbol defining the inbound blockchain protocol."New value: +"Inbound asset symbol defining the source blockchain protocol and deposit reserve requirements. Must differ from 'to'."
    • changedInput schema / properties / to / description
      Previous value: -"Destination cryptocurrency ticker symbol defining the target settlement network where miner fee is deducted."New value: +"Outbound asset symbol determining the destination network miner fee ('network_fee') deducted at settlement. Must differ from 'from'."
  2. Added

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Although annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint false, the description adds substantial context beyond them: 30-second edge caching, structured error responses for unsupported pairs or unreachable feeds, and directional asymmetry caused by destination network fee structures. It is fully consistent with the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into clearly labeled sections for usage, parameter edge cases, and behavior. Despite its length, every section carries decision-relevant information for a tool with non-obvious ticker conventions and pair asymmetry.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description still covers error conditions, caching, read-only behavior, and tricky parameter rules. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke the tool correctly appears to be missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is already 100%, but the description still adds meaningful semantics: the Distinct Asset Rule explains rejection behavior, Ticker Matching specifies case-insensitivity and the difference between 'USDT' for TRC20 and 'USDTERC' for Ethereum mainnet, and Directional Asymmetry explains why from/to produce different floors and reserves. These details go well beyond the schema.

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?

The first sentence states a specific verb ('Inspects') and enumerates the exact resources covered: minimum deposit floors, pool caps, miner fees, and liquidity depth. It also scopes the tool negatively ('without calculating conversion amounts'), clearly distinguishing it from get_swap_quote.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives an explicit USE WHEN section with concrete scenarios and a DO NOT USE section naming the sibling tool get_swap_quote. The agent can route between the two tools without inference.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.