Skip to main content
Glama

Gate DEX MCP

by io.github.gateio-dev

dex_agentic_report

Destructive

Register agentic wallet addresses with the wallet service.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
walletsYesArray of wallet info objects. Each wallet contains walletID and accounts array. Each account contains accountID and chainAddressList array. Each chainAddress contains networkKey, chains, chainAddress, and optional accountKey/accountFormat.
mcp_tokenNoMCP session token obtained from login (dex_auth_google_login_poll or dex_auth_gate_login_poll). MUST be provided in every call to this tool after login; omitting it will result in 403

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating and potentially destructive operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying the action is 'with the wallet service', but it does not clarify side effects, whether registration overwrites existing data, or what happens on success. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

The description is a single sentence of eight words, front-loaded with the key verb and resource. There is zero redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite having a rich schema and annotations, the description leaves significant gaps: it doesn't explain what 'agentic wallet addresses' are, when this tool should be used (e.g., during onboarding), or what the effect of 'registering' is given the destructiveHint. With no output schema and a complex nested parameter structure, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's purpose and side effects.

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% for both parameters (wallets and mcp_token), so the schema already documents their meanings and requirements. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Register') and a specific resource ('agentic wallet addresses with the wallet service'), which clearly states the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling wallet-binding tools like dex_wallet_bind_exchange_uid or dex_wallet_replace_binding, and the term 'agentic wallet addresses' is somewhat ambiguous without additional context.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing to log in first or requiring a token. While the schema field description for mcp_token mentions the login requirement, the tool description itself offers no contextual usage hints.

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

All Gate DEX MCP 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear, distinct roles (auth flows, market data, swap stages, wallet operations). A few ambiguities exist, such as dex_tx_get_sol_unsigned vs dex_tx_transfer_preview and dex_agentic_report's name not matching its description, but overall agents can reliably select the correct tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming is inconsistent: while all tools share the dex_ prefix and category segments, some use get_*, others list_*, and several are noun phrases (dex_chain_config, dex_tx_gas, dex_tx_detail). Auth tool ordering also varies (gate_login_start vs login_gate_wallet), making the pattern less predictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 47 tools, the server is over-scoped and burdensome for agents to navigate. Even though the broad DEX domain justifies many features, this exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' and could benefit from consolidation into fewer, higher-level tools.

Completeness4/5

The tool set comprehensively covers DEX workflows: auth, market data, token info, wallet balances, transfer/swap pipeline, cross-chain bridge, and x402 payments. Minor gaps include lack of explicit swap cancellation or withdrawal execution, but these are secondary to the core functionality.

Resources