Skip to main content
Glama

Tereno on Base

by xyz.tereno
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Will this prepared Aerodrome swap satisfy its encoded limit right now?

aerodrome_swap_guard

Will this prepared Aerodrome swap satisfy its encoded limit right now? Recognize supported Classic and Slipstream routers, simulate the unsigned Base transaction, decode its minimum-output or maximum-input constraint, and return bounded evidence before signing. Does not predict inclusion or protect against MEV. Paid per call with x402 on Base: $0.25 USDC. Private: the response is never cached, shared or resold, and it can only describe work that was already public.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoSupported Aerodrome Classic or Slipstream router.
dataNoPrepared Aerodrome swap calldata.
fromNoUnsigned swap sender on Base.
valueNoNative ETH value in wei. Defaults to 0.
tokenInNoInput token address (alternative to data).
amountInNoInput amount in base units/wei (alternative to data).
tokenOutNoOutput token address (alternative to data).
routerTypeNoRouter type: classic (default) or slipstream.
minAmountOutNoMinimum output expected in base units/wei.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / amountIn
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Input amount in base units/wei (alternative to data).",
+  "pattern": "^[0-9]+$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / minAmountOut
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Minimum output expected in base units/wei.",
+  "pattern": "^[0-9]+$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / routerType
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Router type: classic (default) or slipstream.",
+  "enum": [
+    "classic",
+    "slipstream"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / tokenIn
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Input token address (alternative to data).",
+  "pattern": "^0x[a-fA-F0-9]{40}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / tokenOut
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Output token address (alternative to data).",
+  "pattern": "^0x[a-fA-F0-9]{40}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "from",
-  "to",
-  "data"
-]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the $0.25 USDC x402 charge on Base, the no-cache/no-share/no-resale privacy posture, and two explicit non-guarantees (no inclusion prediction, no MEV protection). It is silent on failure modes, e.g. what happens when the router is unsupported or the calldata cannot be decoded.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core question, then the mechanics, then limits/cost. Dense but each sentence carries new information; no filler or repetition of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 9-parameter tool with zero required params, two mutually exclusive invocation paths, and no output schema, the description never explains what "bounded evidence" actually contains or how a caller should choose between calldata and tokenIn/amountIn/tokenOut. The dual-path guidance gap and undefined return shape leave real ambiguity.

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 schema already explains every parameter including the "alternative to data" dual invocation path. The description only adds the notion that the encoded constraint is decoded (min-output vs max-input), which overlaps with minAmountOut/amountIn rather than extending them.

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 names a specific verb chain (recognize routers, simulate the unsigned Base transaction, decode min-output/max-input constraint) on a specific resource (a prepared Aerodrome swap), and the title frames it as a pre-signing check. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling guards such as uniswap_v4_hook_guard or transaction_intent_guard.

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?

"before signing" plus the explicit exclusions ("Does not predict inclusion or protect against MEV") establish when the tool is and is not the right choice. However, no alternative tool is named, so an agent must infer that other guards exist for other scenarios.

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

All Tereno on Base 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