Skip to main content
Glama

stake_quote

Retrieve cryptocurrency staking quotes to evaluate potential returns before committing assets to staking protocols.

Instructions

Retrieve a stake quote.

Expects a StakeQuoteRequestContainer, returns a SwapQuoteRequestContainer.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stake_quote_requestsYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
swap_quote_requestsYes

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'stake_quote' MCP tool. It validates login, calls the armor_client.stake_quote method with the input container, and returns the result or an error.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def stake_quote(stake_quote_requests: StakeQuoteRequestContainer) -> SwapQuoteRequestContainer:
        """
        Retrieve a stake quote.
        
        Expects a StakeQuoteRequestContainer, returns a SwapQuoteRequestContainer.
        """
        if not armor_client:
            return [{"error": "Not logged in"}]
        try:
            result: StakeQuoteRequestContainer = await armor_client.stake_quote(stake_quote_requests)
            return result
        except Exception as e:
            return [{"error": str(e)}]
  • Pydantic model defining the input parameters for a single stake quote request (wallet, SOL input, LSD output token, amount). Used within StakeQuoteRequestContainer.
    class StakeQuoteRequest(BaseModel):
        from_wallet: str = Field(description="The name of the wallet that input_token is in.")
        input_token: str = "So11111111111111111111111111111111111111112"  # Hardcoded SOL token address
        output_token: str = Field(description="the public mint address of the output liquid staking derivative token to stake.") # "jupSoLaHXQiZZTSfEWMTRRgpnyFm8f6sZdosWBjx93v"
        input_amount: float = Field(description="input amount to swap")
  • Pydantic container model for the tool input: list of StakeQuoteRequest objects. This is the expected input type for the stake_quote tool.
    class StakeQuoteRequestContainer(BaseModel):
        stake_quote_requests: List[StakeQuoteRequest]
  • Helper method in ArmorWalletAPIClient that prepares the payload from StakeQuoteRequestContainer and makes the POST API call to /transactions/quote/ to fetch the stake quote.
    async def stake_quote(self, data: StakeQuoteRequestContainer) -> StakeQuoteRequestContainer:
        """Obtain a stake quote."""
        payload = data.model_dump(exclude_none=True)['stake_quote_requests']
        return await self._api_call("POST", "transactions/quote/", payload)
  • Pydantic model for the output container (list of SwapQuoteResponse), referenced in the tool's return type (though code uses StakeQuoteRequestContainer).
    class SwapQuoteRequestContainer(BaseModel):
        swap_quote_requests: List[SwapQuoteRequest]
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 mentions the expected input and return types but doesn't describe what the tool actually does behaviorally - whether it's a read-only operation, if it has side effects, what permissions are required, or how it interacts with the system. The description is technically accurate but lacks operational context.

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 extremely concise - just two sentences that directly state the tool's function and its input/output types. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary information. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as it omits important contextual information that would help an agent use the tool effectively.

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 the presence of an output schema (which covers return values) and only 1 parameter, the description is minimally complete. However, for a financial/trading tool that likely has important behavioral considerations (costs, timing, prerequisites), the description lacks crucial context about how this tool fits into the broader workflow and what constraints apply to its use.

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 only 1 parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by specifying that the parameter is a 'StakeQuoteRequestContainer'. This gives semantic meaning to what would otherwise be a completely undocumented parameter. While it doesn't detail the container's structure, it provides essential context about the expected input type.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the tool's purpose as 'Retrieve a stake quote', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'unstake_quote' or 'swap_quote', leaving ambiguity about what distinguishes these quote retrieval operations. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what makes a 'stake quote' unique.

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. There are multiple quote-related tools in the sibling list (unstake_quote, swap_quote), but the description doesn't explain when stake_quote is appropriate versus those other options. No context about prerequisites, timing, or use cases is provided.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/emmaThompson07/armor-crypto-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server