Skip to main content
Glama

apex-x1

by xyz.apexfaucet
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

exit_check

Before you buy a token, find out whether you can sell it. Give a token address and a position size in USD and this returns what you would actually receive, the slippage, and the largest position that exits under 5%. WORKS ON SEVEN CHAINS: Solana and X1 (base58 address, constant-product maths against the pool's live reserves and its own fee) and five EVM chains (0x address, routed through LI.FI to USDC) - Base 8453 (the default), Ethereum 1, Arbitrum 42161, Optimism 10, Polygon 137. Any other chain id returns UNSUPPORTED_CHAIN and names these five; it is never reported as a token you cannot sell. This is deliberately NOT a safety grade. Safety grades describe the contract (mint authority, LP burn, holder count); exitability describes the depth. A token can score 100 on every safety check and still be untradeable — PROOF does exactly that in our own data. Verdicts on Solana/X1: EXITABLE, PARTIAL, COSTLY, TRAPPED, THIN, NO_POOL, UNPRICED. On EVM: EXITABLE, PARTIAL, COSTLY, THIN, NO_ROUTE, UNKNOWN. NO_ROUTE means the aggregator we check found no way out, which is strong evidence and not proof that no venue anywhere will take it; UNPRICED and UNKNOWN mean we could not resolve a value and are NOT judgements about the token.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usdNoPosition size in USD you intend to exit. Optional — omit to get the largest clean exit instead.
mintYesToken address. A 0x address is an EVM token (Base unless you set `chain`); a base58 address is Solana or X1.
chainNoEVM chain id for a 0x address. Default 8453 (Base). Ignored for base58 addresses.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / chain
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "EVM chain id for a 0x address. Default 8453 (Base). Ignored for base58 addresses.",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / mint / description
      Previous value: -"Token mint address (base58)."New value: +"Token address. A 0x address is an EVM token (Base unless you set `chain`); a base58 address is Solana or X1."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and meets it: it discloses multi-chain routing (LI.FI to USDC, constant-product math), the UNSUPPORTED_CHAIN behavior, per-chain verdict sets, and the caveat that NO_ROUTE is 'strong evidence and not proof.' It also clarifies that verdicts like UNPRICED/UNKNOWN are not token judgements.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and output, and every subsequent clause adds operational detail. It is long and somewhat run-on, and the PROOF anecdote is illustrative rather than strictly necessary, so it is not maximally concise.

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?

Given the high complexity (seven chains, two routing models, distinct verdict sets) and no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it covers return values, error behavior, chain defaults, and interpretive caveats. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit statement that this is a read-only quote check and no transaction is executed, but the phrasing strongly implies it.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema already covers all three parameters at 100%, and the description adds value by spelling out the actual chain IDs (8453, 1, 42161, 10, 137) and by clarifying how address format determines chain semantics. It aligns with the schema rather than replacing it; baseline 3 raised to 4 for the explicit chain mapping.

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 opening line states a concrete decision-time use: 'Before you buy a token, find out whether you can sell it,' and then names the exact outputs: received amount, slippage, and largest position under 5%. It also explicitly scopes the tool by enumerating seven chains and two address formats, and distinguishes itself from a safety-grade checker.

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?

It gives an explicit 'before you buy' trigger and clear exclusions: unsupported chain IDs return UNSUPPORTED_CHAIN, and it is 'deliberately NOT a safety grade.' It does not, however, name a sibling like exit_check_bulk or state when to prefer a bulk/alternative tool, so 'vs alternatives' guidance remains implicit.

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

All apex-x1 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