get_emerging_dex_pairsNewly created DEX pairs above a USD liquidity floor.
THE FLOOR IS RETURNED IN THE RESPONSE, and it is load-bearing: this is
the long tail where most pairs are rugs or noise, and the floor is the
only thing separating a signal from a list of scams. Raising it shrinks
the result set and raises its quality.| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| min_liquidity_usd | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds value beyond those by explaining that the floor is returned in the response and is load-bearing—affecting result size and quality. This warns about rug risks and noise, which is useful behavioral context not covered by annotations.
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 concise—two short paragraphs—with every sentence contributing value. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the explanatory detail on the floor parameter is directly relevant and not redundant.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (newly created DEX pairs), how the parameter influences results, and the tradeoffs involved. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description provides deep semantic meaning for the only parameter, min_liquidity_usd. It explains that the floor is the key filter separating signals from scams, and raising it shrinks results while improving quality. This goes well beyond the schema's default value.
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 clearly states the tool returns newly created DEX pairs filtered by a USD liquidity floor. The verb 'get' and resource 'emerging DEX pairs' are specific, and the condition distinguishes it from sibling market tools like get_asset or get_exchange_flows.
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 use for discovering emerging DEX pairs and explains the floor's role, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.