Returns top Base Mainnet tokens by 24h DEX volume and liquidity velocity that pass CanaryGuard zero-honeypot and prompt-injection safety gates. Price: 0.02 USDC on Base or Solana.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| min_liquidity_usd | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| network | Yes | ||
| verified_tokens | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "network": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "verified_tokens": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "network",
+ "verified_tokens"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, open-world profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are pre-filtered through CanaryGuard zero-honeypot and prompt-injection gates, and each call costs 0.02 USDC on Base or Solana. It does not state sort order guarantees, truncation of the ranking, or what happens when liquidity thresholds exclude everything.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, and the functional scope is front-loaded ahead of the pricing detail. The pricing sentence earns its place as a cost gate, though it could be shortened slightly.
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 explanation is not required, and annotations cover safety semantics. The remaining gap is material: two undocumented parameters with non-obvious defaults and no guidance on how the ranking interacts with the liquidity filter. Adequate but incomplete for a discovery tool.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and fails to explain either parameter. It never mentions that 'limit' caps the number of returned tokens (default 5) or that 'min_liquidity_usd' filters by liquidity floor (default 1,000,000), leaving an agent to infer both from the schema names alone.
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?
It states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns top Base Mainnet tokens by 24h DEX volume and liquidity velocity' filtered by named safety gates. This clearly separates it from single-token siblings such as inspectBaseToken or checkSmartContractHoneypot, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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 use case (discovering trending tokens that already passed honeypot and prompt-injection gates) is implied by the filtering language, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance versus siblings like inspectBaseToken or getOndemandMarketSnapshot. The only hard routing signal is the price line, which tells the agent this is a paid endpoint.
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.