Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
token-launcher

token-launcher

by PonzuTech
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ponzu_zap_eth

Convert ETH into LP tokens in one transaction: splits ETH 50/50 to buy tokens and pair with ETH, creating a liquidity pool.

Instructions

Convert ETH into LP tokens in one transaction. Splits ETH 50/50 — half buys tokens, half pairs with ETH to create LP. Uses ZapEth contract.

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": {
      "tokenAddress": "<tokenAddress>",
      "ethAmount": "<ethAmount>"
    },
    "name": "ponzu_zap_eth"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ethAmountYesETH amount to zap (e.g. "0.5")
tokenAddressYesToken address to create LP for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses the splitting mechanism and contract used (ZapEth). Lacks details on slippage, fees, or authorization needs, but is fairly transparent for a simple DeFi tool.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., transaction hash or LP token ID). It is otherwise complete for the core functionality.

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 already describes both parameters with examples. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

Description clearly states it converts ETH into LP tokens in one transaction with a 50/50 split, distinguishing it from sibling swap tools that only exchange tokens.

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?

Explicitly describes the use case for creating LP tokens from ETH in one step. Does not explicitly list when not to use, but given sibling tools, the context is clear.

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