Skip to main content
Glama

apex-x1

by xyz.apexfaucet
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

lp_add_build

Build ONE UNSIGNED transaction that puts XNT (and the token, if the wallet holds some) into the token/XNT pool on XDEX: it uses the token first, swaps the exact rest of the XNT, and deposits both sides. Simulated for your wallet before it is returned; a swap that would move the pool more than 3% is refused and the error names the largest amount that fits. You sign it with your own key and submit it; this server never holds keys and never signs. It earns a share of trading fees; it does not change faucet claims.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenNoToken mint address, or APEX (default).
walletYesYour X1 wallet public key. Fee payer and signer.
slippageNoFraction between 0.001 and 0.05. Default 0.01 (1%).
xntAmountYesXNT to use. Part of it may be swapped into the token.
apexAmountNoOptional: at most this much of the token from the wallet (default: what it holds). 0 means XNT only.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / apexAmount / description
      Previous value: -"APEX to deposit, in whole tokens."New value: +"Optional: at most this much of the token from the wallet (default: what it holds). 0 means XNT only."
    • addedInput schema / properties / slippage
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Fraction between 0.001 and 0.05. Default 0.01 (1%).",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / token
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Token mint address, or APEX (default).",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / xntAmount / description
      Previous value: -"Native XNT to deposit. It is wrapped for you inside the transaction."New value: +"XNT to use. Part of it may be swapped into the token."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "wallet",
-  "xntAmount",
-  "apexAmount"
-]New value: +[
+  "wallet",
+  "xntAmount"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It thoroughly covers critical aspects: the transaction is unsigned, simulated, swaps moving the pool >3% are refused with a helpful error, the server never holds keys or signs, and the action earns fees without affecting faucet claims. This is comprehensive and goes well beyond minimal safety disclosure.

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 four sentences, each delivering distinct information: the core action, the simulation and 3% guard, the key handling and signing model, and the fee/faucet effects. There is no redundancy or filler; the most important details are front-loaded.

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 tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main workflow, security model, and slippage guard. It clearly implies the return is an unsigned transaction, though it does not detail the exact return format or prerequisites like wallet balance. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation, with only minor gaps.

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%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters and their meanings. The description adds strategic context (e.g., 'uses the token first, swaps the exact rest of the XNT') but does not introduce new parameter-level details. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 description explicitly states the action: 'Build ONE UNSIGNED transaction' that adds XNT (and possibly a token) to the token/XNT pool on XDEX. It clearly identifies the resource (the XDEX pool) and distinguishes this from swap_build by focusing on liquidity provisioning. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use the tool: to build an unsigned transaction for adding liquidity to the XDEX pool. It provides context such as the transaction being unsigned and simulated, which helps differentiate it from swap tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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