Returns the AMMs / DEX sources SwapWizard routes across per chain. Each DEX includes its display name and slug (e.g. "uniswap-v3") — use the slug as the 'project' filter in search_liquidity_pools to filter pools by protocol.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chainId | No | EVM chain ID to filter results. If omitted, returns protocols for all supported chains. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that each DEX includes its display name and slug, giving insight into the return structure. It doesn't mention side effects or limitations, but as a read-only list tool, the disclosed behavior is adequate.
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 two sentences long, with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the slug format and cross-tool usage. Every sentence earns its place.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the purpose, the output content, and how the output connects to another tool. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (chainId) with a description of its behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 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's function: 'Returns the AMMs / DEX sources SwapWizard routes across per chain.' It uses a specific verb ('returns') and identifies the resource (AMMs/DEX sources). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool search_liquidity_pools by explaining that the returned slugs are used as filters there.
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 explicit guidance on how to use the output: 'use the slug as the ‘project’ filter in search_liquidity_pools to filter pools by protocol.' This contextualizes the tool relative to a sibling. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to call this tool instead of others, though the relationship is implied.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: health check, setup guide, chain/dex list, pool discovery, pool analysis, swap quoting (with per-use-case variant), LP position listing, and single-transaction LP entry/exit. No significant overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (analyze_pool, get_swap_quote, list_user_lp_positions, etc.). Even 'zap_into_lp_position' and 'zap_out_of_lp_position' maintain the pattern with verbs 'zap_into' and 'zap_out_of'.
11 tools is well-scoped for a DeFi liquidity management server covering health, discovery, quoting, and LP operations. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
Covers core workflows: pool discovery, analysis, swap quotes, LP position management, and single-transaction zap in/out. Missing is a direct token approval tool, but instructions for approvals are embedded in relevant tools. Minor gap but highly functional.