DexScreener latest token boosts. (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/dexscreener-boosts Payment: x402 protocol — send X-PAYMENT header with base64 payment payload, or X-API-Key / X-Owner-Key / Bearer token to bypass.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no readOnly/destructive annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the x402 payment requirement and authentication bypass methods, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, what data shape is returned, or any rate limits or pagination behavior, leaving gaps.
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 extremely concise: three short lines covering the tool's purpose, HTTP equivalent, and payment method. No redundant words or filler. It front-loads the core purpose and every sentence adds value, making it exemplary in structure.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description gives the essential purpose and payment protocol, but lacks any mention of return structure, typical use cases, or exclusions. Given the simplicity, it is minimally adequate but could be more complete by noting that it returns a list of boosts and suggesting when to use it.
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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds context about the payment header and API key bypass, which is not parameter-related but relevant to invocation. Since no parameter definitions are needed, the baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
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 provides 'DexScreener latest token boosts', identifying the resource and implied action (retrieve). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'dexscreener_search' by focusing on boosts specifically, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', which prevents a 5.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It includes the HTTP endpoint and payment requirements but does not suggest scenarios (e.g., monitoring trending boosts) or contrast with related tools like 'dexscreener_search' or 'trending_tokens'.
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.
Multiple tool pairs are exact duplicates (e.g., wallet_analysis/wallet_analyzer, honeypot_check/rugpull_detector, defi_yield/defi_yield_rates) with identical descriptions, and many overlapping scanners (squeeze_scanner variants). An agent cannot reliably distinguish these tools.
Names are all snake_case, but conventions vary wildly: some are resource names (btc_price), some are actions (list_magnets), some are generic utilities (calculator), and duplicates use different naming patterns for the same function (wallet_analysis vs wallet_analyzer). No consistent verb_noun or resource_action pattern.
139 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server, far exceeding the 50+ threshold. The scope is a grab-bag of unrelated domains (crypto, FDA, SEC, utilities, web scraping), suggesting no curation.
The set is a shallow pile of read-only queries and utilities with no lifecycle management for any one domain. Many sub-areas have only one or two tools, and duplicates occupy slots where distinct operations should be. The lack of a clear domain makes completeness impossible to assess, but the surface is redundant rather than comprehensive.