Poll Google OAuth flow; returns pending/ok/error. [write] On ok: immediately replace stored mcp_token with login_result.mcp_token — new token is tied to a different account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flow_id | Yes | Flow ID returned by dex_auth_google_login_start |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing a critical side effect: on success, it immediately replaces the stored mcp_token with a token tied to a different account. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context beyond the structured annotations that helps an agent understand the impact of invoking the tool.
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 two concise sentences, front-loads the primary action and return values, and includes the essential side-effect warning without any filler. Every phrase adds meaningful information.
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?
For a single-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return states, and the significant token replacement side effect. This is sufficient context for an agent to understand and safely invoke the tool.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for flow_id, stating it is returned by dex_auth_google_login_start. The description does not add further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('Google OAuth flow'), states the return statuses (pending/ok/error), and clearly differentiates this polling tool from the sibling start tool and gate poll alternatives by its focus on Google OAuth and token replacement.
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?
It clearly implies usage: call after dex_auth_google_login_start, as indicated by the flow_id description referencing the start tool. It provides context about the polling flow, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like the gate login poll.
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.