Real-time multi-chain DEX liquidity depth, EVM contract security audits, and cross-chain bridge routing.
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool targets a clearly separate DeFi concern: contract security auditing, cross-chain bridge route optimization, and DEX liquidity aggregation. There is no meaningful overlap or chance of misselection.
All three names follow the same predictable snake_case pattern combining a domain descriptor with a functional role suffix (_screener, _optimizer, _router). The naming is uniform and easy to scan.
At three tools, the server is tightly scoped to distinct DeFi routing/analysis functions. Each tool earns its place and the small count is appropriate for a focused utility.
The set covers security screening, bridge route calculation, and DEX liquidity aggregation, but the 'router' label implies execution or final route selection, which is absent. Agents can research and compare options but cannot complete an actual swap or bridge action.
Audits EVM token contracts for blacklists, honeypot traps, and tax anomalies (Honeypot.is API).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain_id | No | ||
| token_address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It names the external API (Honeypot.is) and the audit dimensions, but it does not disclose network-call side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or failure behavior if the token is invalid. This is a significant gap for an external API-based tool.
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?
Single sentence with no filler; the verb, target, checks, and API source are all packed efficiently. Front-loaded with the action and scope.
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?
For a two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and audit scope, and the output schema handles return values. However, it omits chain_id semantics and any usage caveats, and the lack of annotations leaves behavioral context thin; adequate but with clear gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives token_address context by mentioning token contracts, but it says nothing about chain_id, its default, or how chain selection affects the audit. The description adds almost no parameter-level meaning beyond the raw schema.
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 opens with the specific verb 'Audits' and names the resource (EVM token contracts) and the three checks performed (blacklists, honeypot traps, tax anomalies). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like dex_liquidity_router and cross_chain_bridge_optimizer, which address trading/infrastructure rather than security auditing.
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 the tool should be used when a token needs security screening before engagement, but it never says when not to use it or names alternatives. Sibling tools are different enough that no exclusion is needed, yet there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites such as supported chains or token formats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Calculates lowest-slippage bridge routes across EVM and Solana (LI.FI API).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to_chain | Yes | ||
| to_token | Yes | ||
| from_chain | Yes | ||
| from_token | Yes | ||
| from_amount | Yes | ||
| from_address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
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 mentions the LI.FI API, which hints at an external dependency and potential network calls, but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, what errors may occur, or any rate limits. This is a modest level of transparency but insufficient for a tool that could have side effects or fail due to external service issues.
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, clear sentence with no fluff, front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately concise, though it could be slightly more structured with separate sentences for scope and constraints, but it remains efficient and easy to parse.
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 has six required parameters, an external API dependency, and a schema with zero descriptions, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain parameter semantics, provide usage examples, or note any limitations. While an output schema exists, the absence of parameter guidance makes the tool difficult to invoke correctly. The description is not complete enough for an agent to use it reliably.
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?
The schema has zero descriptions for its six parameters, so the description must compensate. However, it only vaguely suggests that parameters define a bridge request (from/to chain and token, amount, address) without explaining formats, enumerations, or unit expectations (e.g., wei vs. decimal). The description does not clarify how to specify chain names or token identifiers, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent.
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 states a specific verb ('Calculates'), a clear resource ('lowest-slippage bridge routes'), and a scope ('across EVM and Solana'), while also naming the underlying API (LI.FI). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like contract_security_screener and dex_liquidity_router, which handle different functions.
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 the tool is for bridging across chains, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like dex_liquidity_router for on-chain swaps. There is no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the usage context from the tool name and function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Aggregates liquidity depth, 24h volume, spread, and USD pricing across DEXs (DexScreener API).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain_id | No | ||
| token_address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description usefully discloses the external data source (DexScreener API) and the metrics returned. However, with no annotations provided, it carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure and does not mention read-only expectations, rate limits, data freshness, or error behavior.
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?
One sentence with no filler; the action and data scope are front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the tool is relatively simple with one required parameter. Still, the description lacks usage guidance and parameter semantics, so an agent can identify the purpose but not fully judge invocation details or when it is the wrong 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 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning, but it does not mention token_address or chain_id at all. The field names are self-explanatory at a basic level, but chain_id's empty-string default and accepted chain values are left undocumented.
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 uses a specific verb ('Aggregates') and names concrete resources: liquidity depth, 24h volume, spread, and USD pricing across DEXs. It clearly separates this tool from the security-screening and bridge-optimizer siblings because it is about DEX market data rather than contract risk or bridging.
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?
No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus contract_security_screener or cross_chain_bridge_optimizer. The description implies use for DEX liquidity/pricing analysis, but it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
contract_security_screenercross_chain_bridge_optimizerdex_liquidity_router
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.