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

bridge_status

Track a cross-chain bridge submitted via bridge_quote — returns DONE / PENDING / FAILED plus the receiving-chain tx once it completes. Pass the source-chain tx hash (and the bridge tool from the quote for a faster lookup).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bridge`	No	The bridge tool from bridge_quote (e.g. across, stargate) — optional
`txHash`	Yes	Source-chain transaction hash from submitting the bridge tx
`toChain`	No	Destination chain id/key (optional)
`fromChain`	No	Source chain id/key (optional)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	Yes	DONE \| PENDING \| FAILED \| NOT_FOUND
`sending`	No	source-chain leg
`receiving`	No	destination-chain leg (tx hash once complete)
`substatus`	No
`substatusMessage`	No

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Describes return values and optional optimization hint. No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Discloses statuses and receiving-chain tx, but no mention of auth, rate limits, or error conditions. Acceptable for a read-only status tool.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, then provides parameter guidance.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema and high schema coverage, the description fully explains the tool's function, status values, and relationship to bridge_quote. No gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by explaining that the 'bridge' parameter comes from bridge_quote and speeds up lookup. This goes beyond the schema's bare description of the parameter.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Clearly states it tracks a cross-chain bridge submitted via bridge_quote, returning DONE/PENDING/FAILED plus receiving-chain tx. Uses specific verb 'Track' and resource 'cross-chain bridge'. Distinguishes from sibling bridge_quote.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly instructs to pass source-chain tx hash and optionally the bridge tool from the quote for faster lookup. Implies usage context after bridge_quote, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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?