Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Algorand MCP

Algorand MCP

by GoPlausible
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

api_tinyman_get_liquidity_quote

Calculate liquidity addition quotes for Tinyman pools on Algorand. Determine required asset amounts for flexible, single-asset, or initial pool setups.

Instructions

Get quote for adding liquidity to a pool

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": {
      "asset1Id": "<asset1Id>",
      "asset2Id": "<asset2Id>",
      "mode": "<mode>"
    },
    "name": "api_tinyman_get_liquidity_quote"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asset1IdYesID of the first asset
asset2IdYesID of the second asset
asset1AmountNoAmount of first asset to add
asset2AmountNoAmount of second asset to add
modeYesMode of adding liquidity
versionNoTinyman protocol versionv2
networkNoAlgorand network to use (default: mainnet)
itemsPerPageNoNumber of items per page for paginated responses (default: 10)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv4.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get quote', implying a read-only, non-destructive operation, but does not confirm this or add context about rate limits, authentication needs, or what the quote output entails. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral details beyond the basic action.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Get quote for adding liquidity to a pool'. It is front-loaded and directly conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of liquidity quoting with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the quote's format, potential errors, or how the 'mode' parameter affects the quote, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use the tool effectively in context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions and enums, so the schema provides comprehensive parameter semantics. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameter interactions, constraints, or usage examples. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get quote' and the resource 'for adding liquidity to a pool', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'api_tinyman_get_swap_quote' or 'api_tinyman_get_remove_liquidity_quote', which are also quote-related tools in the same domain.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other Tinyman quote tools or general liquidity management operations. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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