List all AeX402 AMM pools on Solana. Returns pool addresses with basic info (mints, balances, fee, amp). Pools are 1024-byte accounts owned by program 3AMM53MsJZy2Jvf7PeHHga3bsGjWV4TSaYz29WUtcdje.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| minTvl | No | Minimum TVL in lamports to filter (default 0) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| pools | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description adds behavioral context: pools are 1024-byte accounts owned by a specific program, and returns basic info. It implies a read-only operation, which is appropriate.
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?
Three sentences with no wasted words, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the return fields (mints, balances, fee, amp) and account details. Could mention pagination but not necessary.
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?
There is one parameter (minTvl) with 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.
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 tool lists all AeX402 AMM pools on Solana, which distinguishes it from siblings like aex402_getPool (single pool) and aex402_buildSwap (swap). The verb 'list all' is specific and actionable.
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 use for listing all pools, contrasting with sibling tools for specific operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the context is clear.
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.
