Skip to main content
Glama

DexPaprika

by com.dexpaprika.mcp

search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search across ALL networks at once for tokens, pools, and DEXes by name, symbol, or address, returning three arrays: 'tokens', 'pools', and 'dexes'. Read-only and keyless. This is the cross-chain entry point when you do not yet know which network something lives on; once you have a network slug from the results, switch to the network-scoped tools. Use for 'find PEPE', 'what is the address for USDC', or 'which chain is this token on?'. No matches returns empty arrays, not an error. Params: query (required; a name, symbol, or contract address, e.g. 'uniswap', 'bitcoin', or '0x...'); limit (optional, caps results per category, applied client-side).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoOPTIONAL: Cap items returned per category (tokens, pools, dexes). Upstream returns all matches by default; this client-side slice keeps payloads small for agents. Applies independently to each category.
queryYesREQUIRED: Search term (e.g., 'uniswap', 'bitcoin', 'ethereum', or a token address).
rationaleYesREQUIRED. 1-2 sentence rationale for this call (e.g. "User asked for X; calling Y to fetch Z"). Logged for MCP improvement, never shown to end users. No PII or secrets. See the server `instructions` field for the full convention and worked examples.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds 'Read-only and keyless', explains empty-array behavior instead of errors, and clarifies client-side limiting. This adds useful context beyond annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by supplementary details. A minor improvement could be reducing redundancy about return arrays, but overall it is well-structured and efficient.

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 moderate complexity and absence of output schema, the description fully covers the return format (three arrays), parameter behavior, usage context, and edge cases (empty arrays). No significant 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%, providing full parameter documentation. The description adds value by elaborating on the query parameter's purpose and clarifying that limit is applied client-side per category, which aids agent understanding.

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 explicitly states the tool searches across ALL networks for tokens, pools, and DEXes, returning three arrays. It distinguishes itself from network-scoped siblings by positioning as the cross-chain entry point.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides clear when-to-use guidance ('when you do not yet know which network something lives on' and specific examples like 'find PEPE'), and explicitly advises switching to network-scoped tools once a network slug is known.

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

All DexPaprika toolsInspect
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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose: network listings, DEX listings, pool discovery, pool snapshots, OHLCV, transactions, token details, multi-price, token pools, search, stats, and feedback. Potential overlaps like getTopTokens vs filterNetworkTokens are explicitly disambiguated in descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Mostly follows camelCase verb-first pattern (getNetworks, getPoolDetails, getTokenMultiPrices). However, the pair filterNetworkTokens and getNetworkPoolsFilter are inconsistently structured; the latter should logically be filterNetworkPools for full consistency.

Tool Count4/5

At 17 tools, it slightly exceeds the ideal 3-15 range, but each tool covers a distinct data operation for a comprehensive DEX-market API. The count feels justified given the breadth of features, though it is on the heavier side.

Completeness4/5

The domain of read-only DEX analytics is well covered: networks, DEXes, pools, tokens, search, stats, and per-pool history. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct token price history endpoint, but pool OHLCV and token details cover most needs.

Resources