DeFi Guard MCP

quote_swap

Get the best executable swap quote on Base for a given input amount by testing all Uniswap V3 fee tiers.

Instructions

Real exact-input swap quote on Base via Uniswap V3 QuoterV2. Tries all fee tiers (0.01%, 0.05%, 0.3%, 1%) and returns the best executable output. Amounts are human units (e.g. '0.5').

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": {
      "tokenIn": "<tokenIn>",
      "tokenOut": "<tokenOut>",
      "amountIn": "<amountIn>"
    },
    "name": "quote_swap"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tokenIn`	Yes	Input token address
`amountIn`	Yes	Human-readable input amount, e.g. '0.5'
`tokenOut`	Yes	Output token address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful details like trying all fee tiers and returning the best executable output, and specifies human units. However, it does not disclose whether the call is read-only, what happens on failure (e.g., no liquidity), or the exact return format beyond 'best executable output'.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes only relevant specifics (fee tiers, human units). No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must fully cover behavior. It explains the quoting mechanism and human units but leaves out the return format (e.g., amountOut, fee tier chosen) and error scenarios. Given the moderate complexity, the description is adequate but incomplete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions like 'Input token address' and 'Human-readable input amount, e.g. '0.5''. The description reinforces 'Amounts are human units' but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for any parameter. 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('quote') and names the exact resource ('swap on Base via Uniswap V3 QuoterV2'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (which focus on risk/health) by focusing on quote generation.

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?

The description implies clear usage: use when you need an exact-input swap quote on Base. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling tools are unrelated.

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

Deploy Server