Per-interval buy/sell volume and tx counts (5m–24h). Candlesticks→get_kline. Pool events→get_pair_liquidity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | Chain name. Supported: bsc, base, eth, solana, arbitrum, polygon, avalanche, fantom, zksync, linea, optimism, sui, blast, tron, merlin, world, eni, bera, gatelayer, ton | |
| pair_address | No | Optional pair address | |
| token_address | Yes | Token contract address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, while the description clearly describes a read-only market data retrieval function ('buy/sell volume and tx counts'). This is a direct contradiction, as the description implies a non-destructive operation. The description also provides no additional behavioral context to resolve this.
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 sentences and entirely functional. The first sentence states the tool's core function, the second immediately provides routing to sibling tools. No wasted words, and structure is front-loaded.
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 data retrieval tool with three parameters, the description covers purpose and alternatives, but it omits return value details (no output schema exists) and does not address the destructive annotation contradiction. The interval ranges (5m–24h) add some context, but overall the description leaves some gaps for agent decision-making.
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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already explained in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 the tool provides 'Per-interval buy/sell volume and tx counts (5m–24h)', which is a specific, searchable function. It also distinguishes itself from related tools by explicitly directing to get_kline for candlesticks and get_pair_liquidity for pool events, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 clearly tells when to use this tool (for volume and tx stats) and names alternatives for other data types ('Candlesticks→get_kline. Pool events→get_pair_liquidity.'). It lacks an explicit 'do not use when...' list, but the alternative mapping serves as strong 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.