PreFlyte — DeFi Financial Intelligence for AI Agents

check_pool_viability

Before swapping on Uniswap V3, check if pools have sufficient liquidity
for the intended trade size.

Finds all matching pools for a token pair, assesses trade impact relative
to pool TVL, and recommends the best pool.

Args:
    api_key: Your PreFlyte API key (required).
    chain: Chain name — "ethereum" or "arbitrum".
    token_pair: Token pair separated by "/" — e.g. "WETH/USDC", "WBTC/WETH".
    trade_size_usd: Intended swap size in USD.

Returns:
    Dictionary with per-pool viability (TVL, trade impact, fee cost),
    a recommendation, and data freshness.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	Yes
`api_key`	Yes
`token_pair`	Yes
`trade_size_usd`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedApr 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool finds matching pools, assesses trade impact relative to TVL, recommends a pool, and returns data freshness. This gives a good sense of behavior, though it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or non-mutating, which is implied by 'check'.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then method, then args, then returns. It is concise and each sentence adds value, with no fluff or redundant repetition of schema fields.

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 no output schema, the description explains return values (per-pool TVL, trade impact, fee cost, recommendation, freshness). It covers inputs and outputs adequately. It could optionally mention edge cases or limitations, but for a moderate 4-param tool, this is nearly complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains each parameter with types, examples, and allowed values (e.g., chain as 'ethereum' or 'arbitrum', token_pair format 'WETH/USDC', trade_size_usd as USD). This is exactly the kind of semantic enrichment the schema lacks.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'check if pools have sufficient liquidity for the intended trade size' on Uniswap V3. It specifies the verb (check), the resource (pools), and the scope, distinguishing it from siblings like assess_opportunity or check_entry_viability.

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 explicitly says 'Before swapping on Uniswap V3, check if pools have sufficient liquidity,' providing a clear when-to-use context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, so it misses the 'when-not/alternatives' component.

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

All PreFlyte — DeFi Financial Intelligence for AI Agents tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a distinct function: assess_opportunity is a holistic decision-maker, check_entry_viability and check_pool_viability target different domains (lending vs. DEX), and estimate_net_position provides a projection unlike get_market_snapshot's current state. Even overlapping tools like get_ranking and get_returns are differentiated by their output format and filtering.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (assess_opportunity, estimate_net_position, verify_claim) or verb_phrase (check_entry_viability, get_market_snapshot). The outlier is gas_timing, which uses a noun_gerund structure instead of starting with a verb, breaking the otherwise consistent convention.

Tool Count5/5

With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for a DeFi intelligence platform. Each tool covers a distinct aspect—opportunity assessment, viability checks, projections, market snapshots, historical data, gas guidance, and claim verification—without unnecessary redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core decision workflows: assess, check, estimate, snapshot, ranking, history, gas, and verification. Minor gaps include lack of a tool to list supported assets/protocols/chains and no swap projection tool to complement check_pool_viability, but agents can work around these.

Resources

Need Help?