aeX402 — Cross-Chain DeFi MCP: LINQ, AMM, Bridge, AI

aex402_rh_pool

Get the live state of the aeX402 AMM on Robinhood Chain (EVM 4663) — the diamond-contract port of the Solana AMM. The AMM is the set of GRADUATED launchpad coins whose pools are seeded in-diamond on the canonical launchpad (0xED2F); this enumerates them live by scanning VPoolGraduated events + reading each pool's reserves, so it tracks reality as coins graduate. Returns graduatedPools[] (poolId, token, reserves, TVL), graduatedPoolCount, and status ("live" | "no-graduated-pools" | "unknown"), plus the legacy standalone 0xA1F6 USDG/WETH pool (legacy-drained). Distinct from the chain's Uniswap-fork DEX. No inputs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the scanning mechanism (VPoolGraduated events + reserves), returns status field, and mentions the legacy-drained pool. While it does not discuss side effects or rate limits, it sufficiently discloses its read-only, live-tracking behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but efficient, with each sentence adding value: purpose, mechanism, returned fields, differentiation, and input clarification. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids unnecessary repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a thorough overview: it explains the data source, returned fields, and status. However, it could complete the context by noting that sibling tools (e.g., aex402_listPools) may offer similar but distinct functionality.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4 per rubric. The description states 'No inputs,' which is consistent and adds no extra meaning beyond the empty schema. Since coverage is 100% (vacuously), no correction is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool gets the live state of the aeX402 AMM and enumerates graduated pools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like aex402_getPool or aex402_listPools, which could cause confusion about which tool to use for specific pool queries.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies that the tool is used to get all graduated pools live, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., aex402_getPool for a single pool). There are no when/not-to-use conditions or alternative suggestions, only a mention that it is distinct from the chain's Uniswap-fork DEX.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All aeX402 — Cross-Chain DeFi MCP: LINQ, AMM, Bridge, AI tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

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 Consistency2/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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).

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?