Returns current Gate UID binding for the session wallet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mcp_token | No | MCP 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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description 'Returns current Gate UID binding' strongly implies a read-only operation, but annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true. This is an annotation contradiction and leaves the tool's true behavior unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the purpose and scope immediately. It earns its place with zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description should clarify the return value, but it only vaguely says 'current Gate UID binding'. The contradictory annotations add behavioral uncertainty, and there is no context about the Gate UID concept or how this fits into the authentication flow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter mcp_token, including its requirement and the 403 error consequence. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Returns' with a clear resource 'Gate UID binding' and scope 'session wallet', making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like dex_wallet_bind_exchange_uid or dex_wallet_replace_binding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as binding or replacing a Gate UID. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this call is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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 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.
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.
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.