Skip to main content
Glama

Gate DEX MCP

by io.github.gateio-dev

dex_rpc_call

Destructive

Proxy a JSON-RPC call to a blockchain node.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainYesChain name (e.g., ETH, BSC, SOL, ARB, POLYGON)
methodYesRPC method name (e.g., eth_blockNumber, eth_getBalance, getLatestBlockhash)
paramsNoRPC method parameters as JSON array
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

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as potential side effects, chain support, or rate limits. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotation profile.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the minimal information it conveys.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description is minimal for a generic RPC proxy. While the schema details parameters and annotations cover safety, the description does not explain the response format (no output schema), supported chains/methods, or when to use it. It is adequate for basic selection but leaves gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides with examples like eth_blockNumber and getLatestBlockhash.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Proxy a JSON-RPC call to a blockchain node'), with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like dex_tx_send_raw_transaction or other RPC-related operations, so it falls short of a top score.

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. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or related tools. The mcp_token requirement in the schema is authentication-related, not usage guidance.

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