BlazePhoenix MCP
Server Details
On-chain DEX aggregator quotes, phantom-liquidity scanning, and live proof-of-solvency across Base, Ethereum, Optimism, Arbitrum, and Robinhood Chain. Keyless, no auth.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Score is being calculated. Check back soon.
Available Tools
3 toolscheck_solvencyAInspect
Read the BlazePhoenix staking engine's live proof-of-solvency from the chain: isSolvent(), collateral ratio and reserve figures. Zero trust required — the numbers are re-read from contract storage on every call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states it is a read operation ('Read') and emphasizes that no trust is required because numbers are re-read from contract storage on every call. With no annotations provided, this adequately discloses behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences efficiently convey purpose and key characteristics without unnecessary words. Information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main outputs and the dynamic nature of data. It could be improved by specifying the return types (e.g., boolean, numbers) but is otherwise complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the data returned (isSolvent, collateral ratio, reserve), which goes beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it reads proof-of-solvency data from the chain, specifying 'isSolvent(), collateral ratio and reserve figures'. The verb 'Read' indicates a read operation, and the tool's purpose is distinct from siblings 'get_quote' and 'xray_scan'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for trustless solvency checking ('Zero trust required') and notes the data is re-read on every call. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_quoteAInspect
Get an on-chain DEX aggregator quote (computed by the Quoter contract, not an off-chain API). Returns route, expected output, price impact and the enforced minimum. Add recipient to also receive signable transaction calldata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| in | Yes | input token — symbol (ETH, USDC, BZPX…) or 0x address | |
| out | Yes | output token — symbol or 0x address | |
| chain | Yes | base | eth | optimism | arbitrum | robinhood (or a chain id) | |
| amountIn | Yes | input amount in the token's smallest units (wei-style integer string) | |
| recipient | No | optional 0x address; when set, the response includes signable tx calldata |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses on-chain computation via Quoter contract and that including 'recipient' yields signable tx calldata. Lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return values, optional parameter effect. No fluff, front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description lists return values (route, expected output, price impact, enforced minimum) and optional calldata. Adequate for a simple quote tool; lacks explanation of 'enforced minimum' but acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and description adds minimal value beyond schema descriptions. It repeats input formats (symbol or address) and amount units already in schema, and notes recipient's effect on response—but this is marginal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'on-chain DEX aggregator quote', distinguishes from off-chain APIs, and aligns with the tool name. No sibling confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or how it relates to sibling tools (check_solvency, xray_scan).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
xray_scanInspect
Scan any token for phantom liquidity: compares the depth its pools ADVERTISE against the balances the pool contracts actually hold on-chain. Returns verdict (healthy/elevated/high), phantom %, real liquidity USD and a max-safe-trade estimate. Works for any traded token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | base | eth | optimism | arbitrum | robinhood (default base) | |
| token | Yes | token to scan — 0x address or traded symbol |
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!