SiteCheck Shop & Social

GMX token prices on Arbitrum from the public

ecommerce_gmx_arbitrum_prices

Read-only

GMX token prices on Arbitrum from the public api.gmx.io/prices feed. Returns token contract addresses (the feed has no symbols) and USD price per token, scaled by 1e30 as GMX does. Use the address to match the token yourself. Takes about 12 s; allow a 30 s timeout. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ecommerce_gmx_arbitrum_prices"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No
`source`	No
`tokens`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the 1e30 price scaling, the absence of symbols in the feed, the ~12 s latency with a recommended 30 s timeout, the per-call cost, the payment rails (x402 on Base, Solana, Arc), and the fact that failed calls are not charged. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs and cannot get from annotations or schema.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the source and payload, then scaling, then latency, then cost. Each sentence contributes a distinct, decision-relevant fact with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still surfaces the unusual 1e30 fixed-point scaling and the missing-symbols caveat, which are the most likely sources of misinterpretation. Combined with latency, timeout, and billing details, nothing needed to call and correctly interpret this tool is absent.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With zero input parameters there is no parameter semantics to explain, so the baseline applies. The description wisely spends its words on output interpretation (contract addresses, 1e30 scaling) instead of inventing parameter guidance.

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?

The first sentence names a specific resource (GMX token prices), a chain (Arbitrum), and the exact upstream source (api.gmx.io/prices), which is more precise than a generic 'get prices' claim. No sibling in the listed set overlaps, so no disambiguation is required.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives operational guidance (12 s typical, allow a 30 s timeout, $0.002 per successful call) that directly shapes whether an agent should call it, which is valuable. It does not state when to prefer or avoid this tool versus another source, and the only usage instruction ('use the address to match the token yourself') concerns post-call handling rather than tool selection.

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

All SiteCheck Shop & Social 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?