Skip to main content
Glama

x402-endpoints

by io.github.digitalweb33333-creator

crypto_new_pairs

Newly launched DEX pairs and pools per chain (GeckoTerminal) with an instant per-pair safety check bundled in (GoPlus honeypot/tax/verified + mini score) — a sniping agent filters rugs without a second call. Returns pool, base token, price, liquidity and age. EVM safety; Solana lists pairs only. Price: $0.05 per call (x402 payment, USDC on Base mainnet). Newly launched DEX pairs and pools per chain with an instant per-pair safety check bundled in (honeypot/tax/verified + mini score), so a sniping agent filters rugs without a second call. Input: chain + limit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNobase | ethereum | bsc | polygon | arbitrum | optimism | avalanche | solana
limitNoMax new pairs [1-15], e.g. 5
safetyNoBundle a GoPlus safety check per pair (EVM only), default true

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description adds useful behavioral traits: EVM safety check for EVM chains vs Solana-only pair listing, pricing and payment method (x402), and the bundled safety check. However, it omits details on the safety check's reliability or recency of 'newly launched'.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is verbose and repetitive, with almost identical content in two paragraphs. Extraneous details like pricing could be omitted. It could be tightened without losing meaning.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema exists, but the description lists key return fields (pool, base token, price, liquidity, age) and mentions the safety check. For a list tool with 3 params, this is fairly complete, though the safety check output is unspecified.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description reinforces 'chain + limit' input but adds no new semantics beyond rephrasing. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description clearly states the tool lists newly launched DEX pairs/pools per chain with a bundled safety check, specifying the source (GeckoTerminal) and output fields (pool, base token, price, liquidity, age). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context for optimal usage, leaving users to infer appropriateness.

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

All x402-endpoints toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. However, there are clusters of similar tools (e.g., multiple token safety and pre-trade verdict tools for different chains) that could cause confusion, though descriptions help differentiate.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent pattern of lowercase snake_case with descriptive prefixes (e.g., agent_, crypto_, x402_). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous names.

Tool Count2/5

52 tools is excessive for a single server, covering a wide range of unrelated domains (crypto, legal, climate, transport, etc.). This overwhelms an agent and suggests a lack of focus.

Completeness2/5

The server lacks a coherent domain; it offers one-off tools across many areas but misses fundamental operations for any specific domain (e.g., no company registry for US, no order placement for crypto). Significant gaps exist.

Resources