Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aqb-agent

aqb-agent

by yss787976-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

aqb_fund

Mint AQB 1:1 against USDC by specifying a USD amount and optional account, enabling on-chain settlement funding from an AQB vault.

Instructions

Mint AQB against USDC, 1:1 (usd in human units, e.g. 10.5)

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": {
      "usd": "<usd>"
    },
    "name": "aqb_fund"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usdYes
accountNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about side effects: whether the mint is slippage-free/guaranteed, gas, whether it is reversible, or what happens on insufficient funds. Only the 1:1 conversion behavior is disclosed.

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?

A single short clause with the essential verb, pair, ratio and unit hint front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The parenthetical unit note is slightly awkward but earns its place given the 0% schema coverage.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what is minted, the ratio, and the unit format, which is close to adequate. The unexplained `account` parameter and absent side-effect information keep it short of complete.

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 0% and the schema itself gives no descriptions, but the description compensates partially for `usd` by specifying human units with an example (10.5). The `account` parameter is completely unexplained, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ("Mint") and resource ("AQB against USDC") with the exchange ratio 1:1, which is enough for an agent to know this is the funding/mint entry point. It does not name or contrast the reverse operation (aqb_redeem) explicitly, so sibling differentiation relies on the name alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance: nothing about needing a USDC balance or prior approval, nothing about when to prefer another path, and no mention that redemption is handled elsewhere. The agent must infer context entirely from the name and ratio.

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

This server cannot be deployed

Other Tools