r0x-os

Swap any two tokens

trade

Builds a real Uniswap V3 swap between any two tokens on Robinhood Chain. Handles approvals and returns broadcast-ready steps; the fixed fee is 0.01 USDG.

Instructions

Constructs a real Uniswap V3 swap transaction between any two tokens on Robinhood Chain — pass "ETH", "USDG", or any ERC20 address, there is no allowlist. Costs $0.01 USDG. Anything needing an approval first comes back as steps (approve, then swap); broadcast them in order. Pass the result to the broadcast tool to actually sign and send it.

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": "trade"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tokenIn`	Yes	"ETH", "USDG", or any ERC20 token address
`amountIn`	Yes	Amount of tokenIn as a decimal string, e.g. "0.1"
`tokenOut`	Yes	"ETH", "USDG", or any ERC20 token address
`slippageBps`	No	Slippage tolerance in basis points, default 100 (1%)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels. It discloses the real transaction nature, the $0.01 USDG cost, the step-based response for approvals, and the dependency on the broadcast tool. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, cost, approval workflow, and next step. Information is front-loaded and there is zero redundancy. Ideal conciseness.

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?

The description explains the core workflow (construct, approve if needed, broadcast), cost, and token flexibility. Given the absence of an output schema, it adequately describes what the tool returns (steps). It could be more explicit about the structure of steps or failure modes, but it is sufficient for the task.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that any ERC20 address works (no allowlist), that amount is a decimal string, and that approval steps may be returned. This enhances understanding of how parameters behave in context.

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 clearly states the tool constructs a real Uniswap V3 swap transaction between any two tokens. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like price/quote (which likely just quote) and broadcast (which actually signs/sends). The explicit mention of 'pass the result to the broadcast tool' further clarifies its role.

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 usage context: any two tokens, no allowlist, and the workflow of passing results to broadcast. It implies when to use (for swaps) and how to handle outputs with steps. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternative tools like quote/price for price checks, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server