Start Gate device OAuth; returns verification_url. Pass link_mcp_token on a Google session to bind Gate UID without replacing mcp_token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| link_mcp_token | No | Current Google wallet mcp_token for bind-only Gate OAuth; omit for standalone Gate login |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavior details: it returns a verification_url and explains the bind-only mode without replacing mcp_token. However, it does not explain the destructive nature (annotations indicate destructiveHint=true) or any other side effects, leaving the agent to infer the implications of starting a new OAuth flow.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded: two sentences, each conveying a distinct and necessary piece of information (the start action and the bind mode). No filler or redundant phrasing.
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?
While the tool's direct action and return are clear, the description omits the broader OAuth flow—specifically that after starting, the agent should use the sibling poll tool to check completion. This is essential for correct multi-step usage. The annotations and schema cover safety and parameters, but the flow context is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and already describes 'link_mcp_token' thoroughly. The description only restates a condensed version of the schema's meaning, adding no new semantic information. Thus it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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?
The description clearly states the action: 'Start Gate device OAuth' and immediately mentions the return value 'verification_url'. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'dex_auth_gate_login_poll' (polling) and 'dex_auth_google_login_start' (Google OAuth) by naming the specific protocol and operation.
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 description provides context for when to use the 'link_mcp_token' parameter (on a Google session to bind without replacing mcp_token), which is a clear usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like Google login start or mention the follow-up polling flow, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.