[$0.01 USDC per call via x402] DEX trading data for a token: pairs, price, liquidity, volume, 24h txns/change across DEXes. Search by symbol, name, or contract address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Token symbol, name, or contract address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the pricing model ($0.01 USDC per call via x402), which is valuable cost transparency for the agent. It also discloses the data breadth (across DEXes). It doesn't detail pagination or response format, but with an undefined output schema and 1 param, the provided behavioral details are reasonably solid.
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?
One dense, well-structured sentence conveys pricing, data scope, and search modalities. Zero wasted words, no redundancy with the schema.
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 single-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema required, the description covers purpose, pricing, scope, and search options. It could add example result categories or disambiguation behavior (e.g., multiple tokens matching a symbol), but current coverage is strong for the tool's simplicity.
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 coverage is 100% and the description reiterates the parameter's meaning ('Search by symbol, name, or contract address'), which matches the schema's own description. The description adds marginal breadth by explaining that the query expands across DEXes, but it doesn't add substantive syntax, format, or example-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the verb ('search') and resource (DEX trading data for a token) while enumerating specific data points: pairs, price, liquidity, volume, 24h txns/change across DEXes. It also specifies the search modalities (symbol, name, or contract address), distinguishing it effectively from sibling tools like price, ohlc, and market_summary.
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?
The description implicitly signals usage context: this is a DEX-focused data tool for a single token, contrasting with price (likely single price point) and screener (multiple tokens). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, so it gets a 4 rather than 5.
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.
Most tools are distinct by domain (market data, safety, DEX trading, yield, gas), but there is meaningful overlap: token_risk, token_score, and screener all deal with token safety/rug-pull concerns, and screener partially overlaps with trending and token_pairs for discovery. An agent picking between token_risk and token_score could be confused despite the price difference, and screener's safety screening overlaps with both.
All names follow a consistent lowercase noun pattern (fear_greed, gas, ohlc, price, yields, token_pairs, market_summary, etc.), with concise single-word or snake_case single concepts. No verb prefixes, no mixing of conventions, no camelCase. Highly predictable across the whole set.
11 tools for a crypto data API is well-scoped, covering market prices, candles, trending, DEX pairs, token safety, yields, and sentiment. Each tool earns its place with a distinct job, and the count aligns with the breadth of a comprehensive market-data service without becoming bloated.
The surface covers core market data (prices, OHLC, trending, fear/greed), DEX trading (token_pairs, screener), safety (token_risk, token_score), yields, and gas. Minor gaps include no historical yield data, no portfolio/balance tool, and no direct order/trade execution, but for a data-and-safety API the coverage is thorough with no obvious dead ends.
