r0x-os

Check pool liquidity

pool

Get Uniswap V3 pool reserves and implied price for any token pair on Robinhood Chain by providing two token names or ERC20 addresses. Costs $0.01 USDG.

Instructions

Uniswap V3 pool reserves and implied price for any token pair on Robinhood Chain — pass "ETH", "USDG", or any ERC20 address. Costs $0.01 USDG.

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": {
      "tokenA": "<tokenA>",
      "tokenB": "<tokenB>"
    },
    "name": "pool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tokenA`	Yes	"ETH", "USDG", or any ERC20 token address
`tokenB`	Yes	"ETH", "USDG", or any ERC20 token address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a fee ($0.01 USDG) and the read-only nature implicitly via 'pool reserves and implied price'. It also explains input flexibility ('ETH', 'USDG', or any ERC20 address). Missing details like error behavior are minor for a simple query 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary function, provides example inputs, and mentions the cost. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the user can expect: pool reserves and implied price. It also includes the cost and chain context. Minor omissions like return format are acceptable for this straightforward read-only tool.

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 tokenA and tokenB both described as 'ETH', 'USDG', or any ERC20 address. The description adds only the context that they form a token pair, which is a small semantic addition beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: it provides Uniswap V3 pool reserves and implied price for a token pair. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'price' or 'quote', the specific mention of pool reserves makes the purpose distinct.

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 gives clear context for use: 'any token pair on Robinhood Chain' and notes a cost of $0.01 USDG, which informs cost-sensitive usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions.

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

Deploy Server