SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Live DEX pool snapshot from DexScreener for one pool

crypto_dex_pool_liquidity

Read-only

Live DEX pool snapshot from DexScreener for one pool address on one chain (Uniswap, Raydium, Curve and other DEXes DexScreener indexes): USD liquidity, token reserves, price, 24h volume and transactions, FDV. Slippage is not computed. Data is DexScreener's aggregate, not raw on-chain reads. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "chain": "<chain>",
      "pool": "<pool>"
    },
    "name": "crypto_dex_pool_liquidity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pool`	Yes	Pool/pair address on that chain
`chain`	Yes	DexScreener chain slug, e.g. ethereum, base, solana, bsc

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dex`	No
`chain`	No
`fdvUsd`	No
`labels`	No
`source`	No
`txnsH24`	No
`priceUsd`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`baseSymbol`	No
`baseReserve`	No
`pairAddress`	No
`priceNative`	No
`quoteSymbol`	No
`liquidityUsd`	No
`quoteReserve`	No
`volumeH24Usd`	No
`pairCreatedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses that data is DexScreener's aggregate rather than raw on-chain state, that slippage is absent, and — most valuably — the exact cost model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, failed calls not charged). Cost and billing semantics are behavior an agent cannot infer from any structured field.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The identity and scope lead, followed by exclusions and then pricing, so the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded. The parenthetical DEX list is slightly bulky but serves the purpose of signaling coverage breadth.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description supplies everything missing: data provenance, exclusions, cost, and failure billing. An agent can decide whether to call it and what it will pay without consulting anything else.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both `pool` and `chain` already documented including chain slug examples. The description reinforces that lookups are scoped to a single chain and that DexScreener indexes multiple DEXes, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ("Live DEX pool snapshot from DexScreener for one pool address on one chain") and enumerates the returned fields (liquidity, reserves, price, 24h volume/transactions, FDV). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling pool tools like crypto_uniswap_v3_ticks or crypto_balancer_v2_pools, which are protocol-specific rather than cross-DEX aggregates.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The scope constraint (one pool address on one chain) makes the use case clear, and "Slippage is not computed" plus "aggregate, not raw on-chain reads" set explicit expectations about what this tool will not deliver. What is missing is a named alternative for those excluded cases (e.g., a router/quote tool for slippage), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SiteCheck Crypto & Finance tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?