Skip to main content
Glama

Gate DEX MCP

by io.github.gateio-dev

dex_tx_send_raw_transaction

Destructive

Broadcast a signed tx to the chain. [write] Requires user confirmation after transfer preview and prior signing via dex_wallet_sign_transaction. account_id/address are auto-filled from the login session when omitted.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
memoNoMemo (history_data.memo)
chainYesChain name: must match dex_chain_config response `chain` (canonical). Aliases are resolved via chain config before calling upstream.
nonceNoNonce (history_data.nonce)
addressNoSender wallet address (history_data.address); optional when logged in — resolved from session wallet for the chain
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
signed_txYesSigned transaction data. For EVM chains: hex string (0x prefix added automatically). For other chains (e.g. Solana): use chain-specific format
account_idNoAccount ID (for history_data); optional when logged in — resolved from session
token_addrNoToken contract address (history_data.token_addr)
token_nameNoToken name (history_data.token_name)
trans_timeNoTransaction time ISO8601 (default: now)
trans_typeNoTransaction type (history_data.trans_type)
action_typeNoAction type (history_data.action_type)
trans_balanceNoDisplay amount (history_data.trans_balance)
trans_gas_feeNoGas fee display (history_data.trans_gas_fee)
token_short_nameNoToken symbol, e.g. USDT (history_data.token_short_name)
trans_balance_usdNoUSD value (history_data.trans_balance_usd)
trans_oppo_addressNoCounterparty address, e.g. recipient (history_data.trans_oppo_address)
trans_min_unit_amountNoAmount in smallest unit (history_data.trans_min_unit_amount)
trans_min_unit_gas_feeNoGas fee in smallest unit (history_data.trans_min_unit_gas_fee)

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already signal destructive and non-read-only behavior, but the description adds valuable context: mandatory user confirmation, dependency on prior signing, and auto-fill behavior for account/address. This goes beyond the binary annotation flags to explain the procedural requirements of the broadcast.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every clause earns its place. It avoids restating schema details and focuses on the essential flow, making it highly efficient for an agent to quickly parse.

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 core flow (preview → sign → send) is well described, but the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., transaction hash or error behavior). With no output schema, this is a gap for an agent deciding how to use the result. The complexity of 20 parameters is mitigated by the schema, but the missing return-value information prevents a higher score.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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 adds meaning by explaining that account_id/address are auto-filled from the login session, clarifying the optionality of these parameters. It also ties signed_tx to the prior signing requirement, which provides context not present in the schema.

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 opens with 'Broadcast a signed tx to the chain' – a specific verb and resource that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dex_wallet_sign_transaction (signing) and dex_tx_swap_submit (swap-specific) by explicitly referencing prior signing and the broadcast action.

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 provides a clear usage sequence: requires user confirmation after transfer preview and prior signing via dex_wallet_sign_transaction. It also states that account_id/address are auto-filled when omitted, which guides when to supply these parameters. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the sequential prerequisites serve as solid 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