DexScreener token search. Req: { q: string } (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/dexscreener-search 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?
The description discloses the x402 payment requirement and alternative auth methods, which goes beyond the sparse annotations. However, it does not mention whether the call is read-only, rate limits, or expected response behavior, leaving some transparency 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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the required parameter and payment details. Every sentence adds necessary information with no wasted words.
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 simple search tool, the description covers purpose, input, and payment, but it lacks output format details and has a discrepancy with the schema (schema shows no required fields while description says q is required). This leaves the agent uncertain about what the response looks like and whether q is mandatory.
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 input schema is empty, but the description specifies 'Req: { q: string }', providing the essential parameter and its type. This compensates for the schema's lack of details, though it does not explain what the query string should contain (token name, address, etc.).
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 performs a 'DexScreener token search' with a required query string, making the verb and resource specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like token_details or dexscreener_boosts, though the search focus is apparent.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., token_details, dexscreener_boosts) or what kind of queries work best. It mentions payment requirements but not context of use.
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.