Skip to main content
Glama

cpu_swap

Swap ETH for $CPU or $CPU for ETH on the game token pool. Specify amount to spend and optional slippage; the trade executes on-chain with a 1% pool fee.

Instructions

Swap between native ETH and $CPU on the game token pool (Uniswap v4), in either direction: sell: "ETH" buys $CPU, sell: "CPU" sells it for ETH. amount is how much of the sold token to spend. Preview the result first with cpu_quote_swap. The swap is exact-input: you spend amount and receive at least the quoted output minus slippage (a percent, e.g. 0.5 = 0.5%). Selling $CPU auto-approves it (via Permit2) once before the first swap; the trade is submitted on-chain and this waits for confirmation. A 1% pool fee applies.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sellYesToken to spend: ETH (to buy $CPU) or CPU (to sell for ETH).
amountYesAmount of the `sell` token to spend, as a decimal string (e.g. "0.5"). 18 decimals.
slippageNoMax slippage as a percent (e.g. 0.5 = 0.5%); the floor on what you receive. Default 0.5.
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses all key behaviors: direction, exact-input, slippage handling, auto-approval via Permit2, on-chain submission with confirmation, and 1% fee. Thorough.

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?

Single dense paragraph with no wasted words. Logically flows from purpose to parameters to execution details. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers all critical aspects: direction, parameters, preview requirement, token approval, on-chain execution, slippage, fees. No output schema needed as description explains outcome.

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%, but description adds context beyond like 'how much of the sold token to spend' for amount and 'floor on what you receive' for slippage. Clarifies slippage as percent and exact-input semantics.

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 action (swap), resources (ETH and CPU), and context (game token pool on Uniswap v4). It distinguishes from sibling cpu_quote_swap by directing to preview first.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to preview with cpu_quote_swap, explains when to set sell to ETH or CPU, and describes the exact-input nature. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but is clear enough.

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/sodiqit/project-cpu-mcp'

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