Fetches live DexScreener liquidity pools, FDV, 24h volume, and 1h buy/sell orderflow pressure.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one inspects wallet/quota state, the other fetches DEX token intelligence. However, both descriptions reference companion tools ('the other tools on this server', 'execute marketplace tools', 'submit payments') that do not exist in this set, which muddies the surface and may confuse an agent about what else is callable.
Both names follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_agent_wallet_status, get_dex_token_intelligence) and use a consistent 'get_' verb prefix on the same domain nouns. There is no mixing of conventions.
With only two tools, the surface is thin for an API branded as a 'Liquidity, Slippage & Orderflow Audit' service. It is not egregiously wrong (one status tool plus one data tool is a coherent minimal pair), but it sits at the borderline of feeling under-provisioned.
The stated domain (liquidity, slippage, orderflow audit) implies slippage estimation, pool enumeration, historical/comparative data, or batch queries, but only a single token-intel call exists. Combined with dead references to nonexistent payment/execution tools, the surface has significant gaps that will cause agent dead ends.
Inspect an agent's account ledger: remaining free trial calls (out of 5), prepaid USD balance, cumulative spend, total API calls, and total LLM tokens saved. WHEN TO USE: Call before a batch of paid tool executions or after completing a Stripe or USDC top-up to confirm your balance. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use to process web content, execute marketplace tools, or submit payments; use the other tools on this server for execution. PARAMETER INTERACTIONS: Omit agent_id to inspect the default trial account derived from your client IP, or pass your explicit agent_id or agd_pass_ session key to check a specific funded wallet. Free and read-only: never charges a fee or consumes a free trial call. Example: get_agent_wallet_status(agent_id='example')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | Optional Agent ID or agd_pass_ session key to inspect. Omit to check the default wallet derived from your client IP. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No | Structured tool output payload. |
| status | Yes | Execution status ('ok' or 'payment_required'). |
| roi_proof | No | Token compression and cost-savings verification metrics. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it never charges a fee or consumes a free trial call, and the default wallet is derived from the caller's client IP. It does not discuss rate limits or caching, but the cost/free-trial guarantee is meaningful behavioral disclosure.
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?
Front-loaded with the ledger contents, then structured WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE / PARAMETER INTERACTIONS / Example. The labeled sections make it scannable, though the repetition of the read-only guarantee and the worked example add a little bulk.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value detail is optional, yet the description still names the key fields. With a single optional parameter, no nested objects, and annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly further by naming the agd_pass_ session-key form and framing the two modes as an interaction (omit for IP-derived trial account vs. pass explicit agent_id/session key for a funded wallet), which aids selection even though the schema states the omit behavior.
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?
States a specific verb (inspect) and resource (agent's account ledger) and enumerates exactly what is returned: trial calls out of 5, prepaid USD balance, cumulative spend, total API calls, tokens saved. This clearly separates it from the sibling web-content tools (distill_webpage, extract_structured_data, recon_webpage_skeleton), which operate on webpages rather than wallet state.
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?
Explicit WHEN TO USE (before paid tool batches, after a Stripe or USDC top-up) and WHEN NOT TO USE (not for processing web content, executing marketplace tools, or submitting payments). The exclusion clause routes the agent back to the other server tools for execution, so the alternative is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetches live DexScreener liquidity pools, FDV, 24h volume, and 1h buy/sell orderflow pressure. WHEN TO USE: Call get_dex_token_intelligence when your task requires deterministic token-intel analysis for token; use get_agent_wallet_status to check your remaining free trial quota or prepaid balance. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use for unrelated domains or binary media. PARAMETER INTERACTIONS: Pass the target token as a non-empty string; omit agent_id and tx_hash during your 5 free trial calls, or supply agent_id (agd_pass_...) / tx_hash for paid execution. Read-only and idempotent; results are cached for 1 hour (<5ms cache hit). $0.01 per call. Pricing: the first 5 calls per agent_id are free and failed calls are never charged. After 5 calls, the tool returns a payment-required quote (not a fatal error) with a $2 Stripe top-up link and Base/Solana USDC addresses; complete payment, then retry with your agd_pass_ key in agent_id or pass tx_hash. Example: get_dex_token_intelligence(token='example')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | Token contract address or symbol (e.g. USDC, WETH, AERO) on Base/Solana/Ethereum. | |
| tx_hash | No | Optional on-chain Base Mainnet (0x...) or Solana SPL USDC transaction hash. Omit unless settling an individual call directly on-chain instead of using an agd_pass_ key in agent_id. | |
| agent_id | No | Optional agent identifier or prepaid agd_pass_ session key. Omit during your 5 free trial calls to use an ID automatically derived from your client IP, or pass your agd_pass_ key after topping up. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No | Structured tool output payload. |
| status | Yes | Execution status ('ok' or 'payment_required'). |
| roi_proof | No | Token compression and cost-savings verification metrics. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses caching (1 hour, <5ms hit), per-call pricing, a 5-call free trial, and that over-quota calls return a payment-required quote rather than a fatal error. This added operational context is exactly what annotations do not carry, though the pricing/payment detail is somewhat sprawling.
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?
Content is dense and roughly front-loaded (purpose, then usage, then parameters, then pricing), and the example call anchors the format. The pricing/top-up explanation runs long and repeats the free-call rule, so it is slightly more verbose than strictly necessary.
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?
With an output schema present, return-value explanation is not needed, and the description covers the axis that matters most for this tool: quota, payment, and retry behavior after the free trial. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?
Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds conditional interaction rules: omit agent_id/tx_hash during free trial calls versus supplying agent_id (agd_pass_...) or tx_hash for paid execution. It also reinforces that token must be a non-empty string, adding meaning beyond the per-parameter schema text.
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 first sentence names a specific verb (fetches) and concrete resources (DexScreener liquidity pools, FDV, 24h volume, 1h buy/sell orderflow pressure), so an agent immediately knows what data it returns. It also explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling tool get_agent_wallet_status, removing any ambiguity about which tool to pick.
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?
There are explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections, including the alternative tool for quota/balance checks and a domain exclusion for unrelated or binary-media tasks. The guidance is unambiguous and leaves nothing to inference.
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.
get_agent_wallet_statusget_dex_token_intelligenceFetches live DEX liquidity pools, FDV, 24h volume, price impact, and rug-pull flags for any token.
Tracks real-time 1h/24h DEX buy/sell orderflow ratios, whale accumulation signals, and liquidity.
Tracks real-time 1h/24h DEX buy/sell orderflow ratios, whale accumulation signals, and liquidity v
Pre-trade crypto intelligence: survival rating, order-book depth, unlocks and contract flags.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.