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

search_tokens

Search the live token/NFT census for Robinhood Chain (4663) and HyperEVM (999) by symbol or name. Returns matching tokens with address, standard (erc20/erc721/erc1155), decimals, holders, market cap, and — for HyperEVM canonical tokens — live spot price + 24h volume. The census is refreshed hourly (canonical tokens from Hyperliquid spotMeta, top tokens from Blockscout, spam-filtered). Use this instead of discover_programs when you want a specific asset (e.g. "USDC on hyperevm", "stablecoins on robinhood") rather than the whole list.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chain`	No	robinhood \| hyperevm. Omit to search both.
`limit`	No	Max results (default 20).
`query`	No	Symbol or name substring, case-insensitive (e.g. "usdc", "hype"). Omit to list the top of the census.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No
`count`	Yes
`query`	No
`chains`	No
`tokens`	Yes
`censusAgeMin`	No	minutes since the census cron last ran

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses hourly refresh, spam-filtering, and that HyperEVM canonical tokens include live spot price and 24h volume. Also lists return fields (address, standard, decimals, etc.).

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 well-structured sentences. No fluff: first sentence states purpose and returns, second adds frequency and usage 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 tool's complexity (multi-chain search, multiple token standards, market data), the description covers essential aspects. Output schema exists, so return values don't need further elaboration.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining the chains, giving usage examples, and detailing what the output contains, beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states it searches a live token/NFT census for two specific chains (Robinhood Chain, HyperEVM) by symbol or name. It distinguishes from sibling 'discover_programs' by specifying when to use each.

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?

Explicit guidance to use this instead of discover_programs for specific assets, with examples like 'USDC on hyperevm'. Lacks explicit when-not cases, but the alternative is clear.

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?