Skip to main content
Glama

Gate DEX MCP

by io.github.gateio-dev

dex_tx_swap_checkin_preview

Destructive

Returns check-in fields for a swap stage (approve or swap). Call after prepare and before terminal tx-checkin script.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stageYesPreview stage: 'approve' or 'swap'
mcp_tokenYesMCP session token (required in the tool schema). After Google or Gate wallet login, read it from login_result when dex_auth_google_login_poll or dex_auth_gate_login_poll returns success. The server checks this argument first, then the HTTP Authorization header (Bearer mcp_pat_...) — often the same string configured as headers.Authorization on your MCP server in local MCP client config. If there is no token yet, run auth start + poll first. If expired, try dex_auth_refresh_token; if that fails, log in again.
swap_session_idYesSwap session ID returned by dex_tx_swap_prepare

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description says 'Returns check-in fields', implying a read-only operation, but annotations set destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. No destructive side effects are disclosed, directly contradicting the annotations. This is an annotation contradiction.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the core purpose and timing without fluff. The most critical info (what and when) is front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fails to explain what 'check-in fields' actually contain or what the agent should do with them. The sequencing guidance is helpful, but the contradiction with destructiveHint and lack of return-value detail leave significant gaps for a moderate-complexity tool.

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 baseline 3 applies. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, but the schema's param descriptions (especially mcp_token) are rich. No additional credit needed.

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 ('Returns'), names the resource ('check-in fields'), and scopes it to a swap stage ('approve or swap'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like dex_tx_approve_preview and dex_tx_transfer_preview by focusing on the swap workflow.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to invoke this tool: 'Call after prepare and before terminal tx-checkin script.' This gives clear sequencing context that helps the agent understand the workflow position relative to dex_tx_swap_prepare and the terminal script.

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