Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aerodrome MCP for Base

Aerodrome MCP for Base

by Alubiama
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Compare simultaneous veAERO pool allocations

aerodrome_compare_allocations
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare voting split scenarios for up to 4 veNFTs across pools, including hypothetical competing-vote sensitivity, to evaluate allocation options before voting.

Instructions

Compare 1–4 user-specified basis-point splits across 1–5 explicit pools for 1–4 normal veNFTs using one block. Same split per NFT; subtract existing votes, round per NFT, preserve per-token partial subtotals. Includes hypothetical +20/50/100% competing-vote sensitivity with own votes and deposits fixed; not forecasts. Evidence includes independent full-allocation estimates: use scenarios for split results. No optimizer, USD ranking, eligibility or guaranteed earnings.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pools": "<pools>",
      "tokenIds": "<tokenIds>",
      "scenarios": "<scenarios>"
    },
    "name": "aerodrome_compare_allocations"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
poolsYes
tokenIdsYes
scenariosYes
maxRewardTokensNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYes
evidenceYes
readOnlyYes
warningsYes
scenariosYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.5.2

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations by disclosing the exact comparison algorithm: same split per NFT, subtracting existing votes, rounding per NFT, preserving per-token partial subtotals, and fixing own votes and deposits for sensitivity. It also clarifies that the hypothetical sensitivity is not a forecast, which is important for correct interpretation.

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?

The main capability is front-loaded and the caveats are grouped into short, purposeful sentences. Some phrasing, especially 'Evidence includes independent full-allocation estimates: use scenarios for split results,' is dense and less clear, but overall there is little wasted text.

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 comparison tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the algorithm, scope, and limitations well. It is incomplete mainly because maxRewardTokens is left unexplained and the pool-count mismatch with the schema creates ambiguity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries most of the semantic burden and does so well for the key parameters: scenarios are basis-point splits, pools are explicit and limited, and tokenIds are normal veNFTs. However, maxRewardTokens is not mentioned, and the stated '1–5 explicit pools' appears inconsistent with the schema's pools maxItems of 8.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, then quantifies the scope: 1–4 basis-point splits, 1–5 pools, 1–4 veNFTs, one block. It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools by stating it is not an optimizer and does not provide USD ranking or eligibility.

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 gives explicit when-not guidance: it is not a forecast, it uses fixed hypothetical sensitivity scenarios, and it lacks optimizer, USD ranking, eligibility, and guaranteed earnings. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool for those needs, so it stops short of fully explicit alternative routing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools