Skip to main content
Glama

Gate DEX MCP

by io.github.gateio-dev

dex_token_list_swap_tokens

Destructive

Tradable assets on a chain; tag selects favorites or recommendations. Bridge targets→list_cross_chain_bridge_tokens.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagNoList type: empty for normal token list; 'favorite' for user favorites (requires wallet/account_id); 'recommend' for system recommended tokens.
chainNoChain identifier, e.g. eth, bsc, solana, arbitrum. Omit to query all chains.
searchNoSearch keyword (token symbol or contract address)
walletNoUser wallet address(es), comma-separated. Used for favorites and balance display.
web3_keyNoChain web3_key identifier. Only used when chain is empty, auto-maps to chain.
account_idNoUser account ID. Only used when wallet is empty.
search_authNoWhen searching, only return certified tokens. Only effective when search is non-empty.
ignore_bridgeNoIgnore cross-chain bridge restrictions, only filter by chain. Default false.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Despite annotations (readOnlyHint:false, destructiveHint:true), the description adds little behavioral context. It doesn't explain any side effects, authentication needs, or the meaning of the destructive hint. The mention of tag is already covered by the schema, so no new behavioral information is provided.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, with no wasted words. The bridge-target pointer is efficient and front-loaded, but the fragmented phrasing ('Tradable assets on a chain; tag selects...') makes it slightly less polished than a full sentence.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, prerequisites (e.g., wallet/account_id for favorites), or major use cases. It only addresses the bridge-token distinction, leaving many contextual 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a high-level note about tag, which duplicates schema info. It does not add meaning for other parameters like chain, search, wallet, or ignore_bridge.

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 identifies the resource as 'tradable assets on a chain' and hints that the tool lists tokens, with tag selecting favorites or recommendations. It distinguishes itself from the bridge-token sibling via an explicit pointer, but lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', making the action somewhat implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives an explicit alternative: bridge targets should use list_cross_chain_bridge_tokens. However, it does not clarify when to use this tool over other token-related siblings (e.g., ranking, coin info), so guidance is partial.

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