Exchange Gate OAuth code for MCP token. [write] On success, immediately replace any stored mcp_token — new token is tied to a different account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Gate OAuth authorization code | |
| redirect_url | Yes | Gate OAuth redirect URL used in the authorization request |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, and the description adds significant context by stating that on success the stored mcp_token is immediately replaced and tied to a different account. This goes beyond the annotation flags by naming the specific state change and account-switching implication. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short—two sentences—and front-loads the core purpose in the first clause. The warning about token replacement is valuable and concise. It is slightly redundant with the '[write]' tag and the annotation, but overall it is efficient and easy to scan.
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 simple 2-parameter tool with good schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose and key destructive behavior. However, there is no output schema and the description does not describe the return value (e.g., whether the MCP token is returned) or any error/failure conditions. It also assumes the agent knows the OAuth flow context, so it is not fully complete.
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% with both parameters ('code' and 'redirect_url') having clear descriptions. The description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which aligns with the baseline of 3 when schema handles parameter documentation.
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 states a clear purpose: exchanging a Gate OAuth code for an MCP token. It names the specific resource (Gate OAuth code) and the outcome (MCP token), which distinguishes it from sibling Google login and start/poll flow tools. However, the phrasing is slightly telegraphic and does not explicitly mention 'login' or 'authentication', so it loses a point for full clarity.
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 implies usage: this tool is for the final step of Gate OAuth login, exchanging an authorization code for a token. It also warns about replacing the stored token, which is important post-success guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling start/poll tools or Google alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
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.