StellarMCP

stellar_deposit_liquidity

Deposit two assets into a Stellar automated market maker liquidity pool by setting maximum amounts and price range.

Instructions

Deposit liquidity into a classic Stellar AMM liquidity 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": {
      "sourceAccount": "<sourceAccount>",
      "assetA": "<assetA>",
      "assetB": "<assetB>",
      "maxAmountA": "<maxAmountA>",
      "maxAmountB": "<maxAmountB>",
      "minPrice": "<minPrice>",
      "maxPrice": "<maxPrice>"
    },
    "name": "stellar_deposit_liquidity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sourceAccount`	Yes	Account providing liquidity
`assetA`	Yes	First asset of the liquidity pool
`assetB`	Yes	Second asset of the liquidity pool
`maxAmountA`	Yes	Maximum amount of asset A to deposit
`maxAmountB`	Yes	Maximum amount of asset B to deposit
`minPrice`	Yes	Minimum price of asset A in terms of asset B
`maxPrice`	Yes	Maximum price of asset A in terms of asset B
`fee`	No	Liquidity pool fee in basis points (usually 30)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.9Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic mutation ('deposit') without explaining side effects, signing requirements, slippage protection, pool creation implications, or the nature of the returned transaction/XDR.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It sacrifices depth for brevity, but as far as structure and conciseness, it is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

This is a complex operation with 7 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The one-sentence description is not enough for an agent to know prerequisites, how the AMM deposit operation behaves, what the min/max price bounds mean in practice, or what the tool returns.

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 input schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, such as how minPrice/maxPrice relate to slippage limits or how maxAmountA/maxAmountB constrain the deposit, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('Deposit liquidity') and the resource ('classic Stellar AMM liquidity pool'). This immediately distinguishes it from the sibling stellar_withdraw_liquidity and other Stellar tools, so an agent can infer its basic role.

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. It does not mention that it is for providing AMM liquidity, when withdrawal would be appropriate, or any conditions such as pool existence or trustline requirements.

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