Allows agents to open, adjust, and rebalance concentrated liquidity ranges on Aerodrome Slipstream ($0.01 USDC)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| token0 | No | ||
| token1 | No | ||
| tokenId | No | ||
| tickLower | No | ||
| tickUpper | No | ||
| amount0Desired | No | ||
| amount1Desired | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure, but it only restates the purpose. It does not mention that these are on-chain transactions requiring wallet approval, gas fees, or that operations are irreversible. The verbs 'open, adjust, rebalance' imply mutation but offer no safety or side-effect details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tight sentence with no filler words. However, the parenthetical '($0.01 USDC)' is unclear and does not add obvious value, likely referencing a fee tier without specifying. It is still concise and front-loaded with the core actions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 8 parameters, 4 distinct actions, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine required fields, action-specific parameter requirements, return behavior, or failure modes. The description provides almost no operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention token0, token1, tokenId, tickLower, tickUpper, or the amount fields. The phrase 'concentrated liquidity ranges' vaguely alludes to ticks, but no parameter is defined or mapped to a field, leaving the agent without guidance for 8 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific protocol (Aerodrome Slipstream), the exact resource (concentrated liquidity ranges), and concrete actions (open, adjust, rebalance) that align with the mint/increase/decrease actions. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like aerodrome_swap, which handles a different operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention aerodrome_swap, aerodrome_veaero, or any other sibling, nor does it state conditions under which one action within the enum should be preferred. The agent receives no routing hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tools are largely distinct, but web_scraper and browser_scraper overlap on web page scraping, and data_feeds and public_data_feed are hard to distinguish without more detail. A few descriptions do help separate output formats, but an agent could still misfire.
All names use snake_case and are descriptive, but the naming pattern is mixed: deploy_contract and render_screenshot are verb-first, while smart_contract_verifier, base_analytics, and data_feeds are noun phrases. This prevents a predictable verb_noun convention.
Twelve tools is a reasonable count and each has a defined paid purpose. However, the set spans scraping, data feeds, DeFi yields, and smart-contract deployment, so it feels slightly broad for a single server.
Core operations exist for scraping, extraction, deployment, verification, and data feeds, but the surface is incomplete for lifecycle workflows: contracts can be deployed but not called/managed, and data feeds cannot be listed or refreshed. The gaps are noticeable but not fatal for independent one-off API calls.