Total portfolio value and 24h change. → get_token_list for per-token balance detail.
| 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 | |
| account_id | No | Account ID (optional, auto-detected from login session) |
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 annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description indicates a simple read-only portfolio value query. This direct contradiction makes the behavioral transparency score 1, as the description contradicts the structured metadata.
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 extremely concise, using two short phrases that immediately convey the purpose and point to the alternative. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary filler.
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?
While the core purpose is stated, the contradiction with destructiveHint leaves the context incomplete. The description does not address the safety or non-destructive nature of the operation, making it inadequate given the misleading annotations. Minimal detail on return format or auth also reduces completeness.
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%, with both parameters explained in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the tool returns total portfolio value and 24h change. The arrow to get_token_list distinguishes it from the per-token sibling, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.
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?
Explicitly directs the user to get_token_list for per-token balance detail, providing an alternative for a related use case. This implies the tool is for aggregate portfolio value, not per-token detail, offering clear guidance on when to use it.
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.