Get detailed AeX402 pool info: token mints, balances, fee, amplification, LP supply, analytics (OHLCV candles), circuit breaker status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Pool account address (base58) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amp | No | ||
| mints | No | ||
| feeBps | No | ||
| address | No | ||
| balances | No | ||
| authority | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state if the tool is read-only, any side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits—only what data is returned. This is minimal transparency beyond the obvious.
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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the included data. No wasted words.
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?
With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It sufficiently lists the categories of data returned (token mints, balances, etc.), which is adequate for a simple getter tool.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description confirms the tool returns detailed info for the given address but adds no parameter-specific context beyond the schema's own description ('Pool account address (base58)').
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 'Get detailed AeX402 pool info' and enumerates specific data fields (token mints, balances, fee, amplification, LP supply, analytics, circuit breaker status), making it distinct from the sibling aex402_listPools which likely lists pools without detail.
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 implies usage for retrieving detailed pool information but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aex402_listPools, and no when-not or precondition statements.
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.
Several tool pairs overlap in function: aex402_quote vs aex402_buildSwap, search vs search_tokens vs discover_programs, describe_program vs reconstruct_abi, and mcp_linq vs agent_delegate. Descriptions attempt to differentiate, but boundaries are fuzzy and an agent could easily select the wrong one when uncertain.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use camelCase (aex402_buildSwap) while most use snake_case, verbs vary widely (build, get, list, quote, search, describe, discover, launch, delegate, chat), and there is no uniform verb_noun pattern. This makes predicting tool names difficult.
32 tools is excessive for a single MCP server, exceeding the 25+ threshold. While the scope is broad (AMM, bridge, AI, RPC, discovery, launchpad), many tools could be consolidated (e.g., search tools) or are too fine-grained (multiple solana_get* tools).
Core workflows are well covered: AMM (quote/build/get/list), bridge (quote/status), AI (chat/delegate/linq), Solana and EVM RPCs, search/discovery plus health check, launchpad, and payment help. Minor gaps include no direct bridge history or AMM execution, but these are intentional in a non-custodial design.
