On-chain DEX aggregator quotes, phantom-liquidity scanning, and live proof-of-solvency across Base, Ethereum, Optimism, Arbitrum, and Robinhood Chain. Keyless, no auth.
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.
Average 4.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: check_solvency focuses on the staking engine's financial health, while get_quote provides DEX swap safety checks. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection straightforward.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (check_solvency, get_quote). This is predictable and aids an agent in understanding the action and target of each tool.
With only two tools, the server feels minimal and borderline for a comprehensive DeFi interface. While the scope might be intentionally narrow, two tools are on the thin side and could benefit from additional capabilities.
The server covers solvency validation and swap quote safety, but lacks tools for staking actions (stake/unstake) or executing swaps. This leaves notable operational gaps for a full lifecycle, though the read-only safety focus is partially addressed.
check_solvencyAInspectRead 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 | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses that data is re-read from contract storage on every call, implying freshness and trustlessness, which goes beyond the empty schema. It does not mention failure modes or edge cases, but for a parameterless read operation, this is adequate.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place. It conveys the key behavior and return values without redundancy.
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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description effectively explains what the tool does and what it returns. It is self-contained and complete for a simple read-only check, with no unexplained gaps.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. The description adds context about what data is returned (isSolvent, collateral ratio, reserves), which is useful despite the absence of parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not detract from this.
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 tool reads live proof-of-solvency data from the BlazePhoenix staking engine, naming specific elements (isSolvent(), collateral ratio, reserve figures). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_quote and xray_scan by resource and action.
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 obtaining solvency information and emphasizes 'zero trust required', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusions. No comparison to sibling tools is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_quoteAInspectGet 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. The checks object carries the Phoenix Check verdicts — priceImpact (against a 20% hard line), the on-chain Iron Law floor, and a cross-check note — with an overall verdict that fails closed (blocked/danger/caution/ok): quote these when a user asks whether a swap is safe. 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 | |
| rpc | No | optional https RPC endpoint of YOUR OWN node — when set, the read is made through it instead of our shared pool. The service stays free either way; this simply keeps your volume off our quota (and off everyone else's). | |
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of safety and behavior info. It discloses that the quote is computed on-chain by the Quoter contract, that the checks object carries fail-closed verdicts (blocked/danger/caution/ok), and that an optional recipient yields signable tx calldata. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond a simple GET.
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?
The description is three sentences with no filler; every sentence contributes either the core function, the safety-check semantics, or the recipient option. It is dense but appropriately sized for the tool's richness.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values; it lists route, expected output, price impact, enforced minimum, and the checks object with verdicts. This is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect, though it could be more explicit about the exact structure of the checks object.
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?
The schema already covers 100% of the parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning, noting that the recipient parameter triggers signable calldata and that rpc switches to a private node, but these are minor additions over the 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 verb 'Get' plus the resource 'on-chain DEX aggregator quote' clearly identifies the tool's function, and the phrase 'computed by the Quoter contract, not an off-chain API' differentiates it from typical aggregator services. It also lists the returned elements (route, expected output, price impact, minimum), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'quote these when a user asks whether a swap is safe.' It also provides the alternative of providing a custom RPC for volume control, and notes that adding a recipient returns calldata. However, it does not explicitly compare against the sibling tools (check_solvency, xray_scan), though they appear unrelated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
