birdeyeTradeDataGet detailed trade data for a specific token from Birdeye. Supported chains: solana, ethereum, arbitrum, avalanche, bsc, optimism, polygon, base, robinhood, zksync, sui. NOT supported: Hedera (use hederaTokensSwapQuote instead).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | Chain to fetch token data from. NOT supported: hedera | solana |
| address | Yes | Token address to fetch trade data for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds chain support and the Hedera exclusion, but it does not describe the output shape, pagination, or data limitations of 'detailed trade data' beyond that.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides supported chains and an exception in a compact, scannable format. The chain list is somewhat redundant with the schema enum but still earns its place for quick scanning.
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 two-parameter tool with one required parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, this description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The only mild gap is not describing the exact contents or structure of the returned 'trade data,' which is modest at this complexity.
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 100%: the chain parameter includes the enum, default, and the Hedera exclusion, and address is described as the token address. The description mostly repeats the chain list, adding little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed trade data for a specific token from Birdeye.' It also lists supported chains and explicitly names an unsupported chain, so an agent can tell it apart from the many sibling token-, price-, and swap-related tools.
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?
It clearly communicates when the tool applies (detailed trade data on the listed chains) and explicitly says it does NOT support Hedera, pointing to hederaTokensSwapQuote as the alternative. It doesn't map out distinctions among the many other Birdeye/token tools, but it gives actionable routing guidance.
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.
With 113 tools spanning many chains and asset classes, there is substantial overlap. For example, listPositions and getAllPositions appear to serve the same function, and there are many balance, token discovery, and collection data tools that differ mostly by chain or protocol, making misselection likely.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: most tools use camelCase with a verb (baseGetBalances, ethSwapQuote), but some use underscores (nansen_defi_portfolio), others are just bare nouns (wallet, rugcheck), and there are irregularities like solanaBalances instead of solanaGetBalances, plus hederaTokensSwapQuote vs. baseSwapQuote.
The server exposes 113 tools, far beyond the typical well-scoped set. This is an extreme mismatch with the apparent purpose of a wallet/swap server, making discovery and selection difficult for agents.
While the server offers extensive read-only data (balances, market data, NFTs, positions), it lacks core write operations: there is no actual swap execution or token transfer tool, and the referenced emblemCreateVault tool is missing. These are significant gaps that will prevent agents from completing common wallet actions.