Skip to main content
Glama
arcnow-io

@arcnow/mcp

Official
by arcnow-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Quote a sell

arcnow_quote_sell
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a sell quote for Arc tokens on a bonding curve or Uniswap V4 pool: gross/net proceeds, fee split, and minimum-out floor, plus whether an approval is required.

Instructions

What a given quantity of tokens would fetch right now, wherever the token trades: gross proceeds, every fee and who receives it — on a curve the flat 1% split four ways between creator, platform, referrer and protocol — net proceeds in the token's quote (native USDC or an ERC-20 such as EURC), and the minimum-out floor at several tolerances.

Costs nothing and signs nothing.

ON A BONDING CURVE: selling needs NO approval, ever. The curve pulls the tokens through a privileged path that reads no allowance at all, so a holder who has approved nobody can always sell. If you find yourself suggesting an approve step before a curve sell, you are fixing the wrong problem.

IN A UNISWAP V4 POOL (the token graduated and migrated) it is the other way round, and worth telling a user before they sell: the router pulls the tokens with transferFrom, so a pool sell needs an ERC-20 APPROVAL to the router first — a separate transaction. This quote says it is a pool quote, shows arcnow.io's fee hook's 0.80% and the pool's own 0.20% LP fee apart (1.00% in all, read off the pool), the average fill against the pool's spot price, the price impact, and how much holder has approved the router for already. A pool sell is priced as a real holder, so holder must actually hold the tokens; on a writing server it defaults to the signing address. referrer is refused on a pool.

A token that graduated but never migrated trades nowhere; this says so and names arcnow_migrate.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
holderNoPOOL: the address whose tokens would be sold. A pool sell is priced by simulating the real swap as that address, so it must actually hold the tokens. Defaults to the signing address on a writing server; required on a read-only one. Not needed on a bonding curve, where a sell is priced for nobody in particular.
addressYesThe curve address, or the token address. Either works.
referrerNoCURVE ONLY: credited with the referral share of the fee. Refused for a token in its pool. There is no developer argument: the fee has four parties.
tokensInYesHow many whole tokens to sell, as a string — "1000", "12.5". Tokens are 18-decimal.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / developer
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "CURVE ONLY: credited with the developer share of the fee. Refused for a token in its pool.",
-  "pattern": "^0x[0-9a-fA-F]{40}$",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / properties / referrer / description
      Previous value: -"CURVE ONLY: credited with the referral share of the fee. Refused for a token in its pool."New value: +"CURVE ONLY: credited with the referral share of the fee. Refused for a token in its pool. There is no developer argument: the fee has four parties."
  2. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes well beyond this by disclosing that the call costs nothing and signs nothing, that curve sells need no approval while pool sells do, that referrer is refused on pools, and how holder requirements differ. This is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance annotations cannot capture.

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 long but appropriately structured with clear sections for curve and pool behavior, and it front-loads the core result definition. The extra guidance about not suggesting approvals on curve sells and the graduated-but-not-migrated edge case is helpful rather than filler. The length is justified by the tool's complexity, but a slightly tighter version would be even stronger.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a quote tool with no output schema and a nontrivial two-environment behavior, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: result components, fee breakdowns, approval requirements, holder semantics, referrer restrictions, and the dormant-token edge case. No missing context that would prevent correct invocation or interpretation.

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?

The schema already documents all four parameters in detail, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful cross-parameter context: address accepts either a curve or token address, referrer is curve-only and refused on pools, holder must genuinely hold tokens for a pool quote, and tokensIn reflects 18-decimal token amounts. This raises it above baseline even though some content overlaps the schema.

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 precise statement of what the tool computes: current sell proceeds for a given token quantity, including fees, net proceeds, and minimum-out floors. The distinction between a sell quote and the sibling buy/quote tools is clear from the explicit 'selling' framing throughout.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides rich contextual guidance about when the tool applies: on a bonding curve, in a Uniswap V4 pool, or for a token that graduated but never migrated. However, it never explicitly contrasts this with sibling quote tools like arcnow_quote_buy or arcnow_quote_tokens, so the agent must infer selection from the name and content.

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