Skip to main content
Glama

Gate DEX MCP

by io.github.gateio-dev

dex_tx_gas

Destructive

Estimate on-chain gas price and gas limit for a given tx.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesRecipient address
dataNoTransaction calldata (hex)
fromYesSender address
chainYesChain name or alias; resolved via dex_chain_config before calling upstream.
valueNoTransfer value in wei
networkNoNetwork name
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

B3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description says 'Estimate,' which implies a read-only operation, but annotations set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, directly contradicting that implication. No additional behavioral context is provided (e.g., side effects, permissions, or error conditions), so the description fails to disclose what the annotations suggest.

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 redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core operation, making it concise and well-structured for the information it conveys.

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?

With no output schema and a 7-parameter input, the one-line description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, mention the required mcp_token authentication context (beyond schema), or address the destructive annotation. The tool's operational expectations are left underspecified.

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?

All 7 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is met. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to given the high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Estimate') and identifies a distinct resource ('on-chain gas price and gas limit for a given tx'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like transaction previews or RPC calls, and no other sibling handles gas estimation specifically.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dex_tx_swap_quote, dex_rpc_call, or transfer previews. Usage context is only implied by the purpose statement, with no exclusions or alternative comparisons.

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