Skip to main content
Glama

Gate DEX MCP

by io.github.gateio-dev

dex_wallet_sign_message

Destructive

Sign a 32-byte hex message with wallet key. [write] Requires checkin_token from terminal tx-checkin. → sign_transaction for raw tx signing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainYesChain: dex_chain_config name/alias (e.g. ETH, BSC, SOL), or pass EVM / SOL directly for the signing family. Unknown names are rejected via chain config; web3_business_wallet sign-message receives chain "EVM" or lowercase "sol" for Solana.
messageYesMessage to sign (hex)
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
checkin_tokenYesFrom successful tx-checkin response: the checkin_token string (terminal CLI stdout JSON). Must match the signing intent in the same flow.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds operational context by tagging '[write]' and requiring 'checkin_token' from tx-checkin, which is not conveyed by annotations. No contradiction exists, but side effects or return behavior are not disclosed.

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 that includes the operation, a write marker, the auth requirement, and a pointer to an alternative tool. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant or extraneous text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a signing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, the mandatory checkin_token prerequisite, and the alternative for raw transaction signing. It does not explain the return format or potential side effects, but the overall complexity is moderate and the annotations fill in safety semantics.

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 the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description adds minimal value: it clarifies the message size ('32-byte hex') and reiterates the checkin_token source. It does not add detail beyond what the schema already provides for chain or mcp_token.

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 and resource: 'Sign a 32-byte hex message with wallet key.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'dex_wallet_sign_transaction' by adding '→ sign_transaction for raw tx signing.' The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite ('Requires checkin_token from terminal tx-checkin') and directs users to an alternative for a different use case ('sign_transaction for raw tx signing'). It does not exhaustively enumerate when to avoid this tool versus all other signing siblings, but provides clear context for the primary decision.

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