Crypto Bot Audit + Market Data (x402 paid)

One DEX pool in full

market_dex_pair_detail

Read-onlyIdempotent

Everything DexScreener publishes for a single pool: the pair's chain, dex and label, price in USD and native, liquidity split, volume and buy/sell counts per window, and 5m/1h/6h/24h price change. Costs $0.001 USDC per call. Byte-identical to GET /market/dex-pair-detail?chain=base&pair=0x5D0bC342178C8Fe2c2f9A9fcC9D52555C99936db.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pair`	Yes	pool / pair address on that chain [required]
`chain`	Yes	DexScreener chain id (base, ethereum, solana, …) [required]

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ts`	No
`fdv`	No
`url`	No
`note`	No
`pair`	No
`txns`	No
`chain`	No
`dexId`	No
`found`	No
`stale`	No
`caveat`	No
`labels`	No
`reason`	No
`source`	No
`volume`	No
`chainId`	No
`priceUsd`	No
`baseToken`	No
`marketCap`	No
`quoteToken`	No
`pairAddress`	No
`priceChange`	No
`priceNative`	No
`liquidityUsd`	No
`liquidityBase`	No
`liquidityQuote`	No
`pairCreatedAtMs`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 25, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "baseToken": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "caveat": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "chain": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "chainId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "dexId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "fdv": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "found": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "labels": {
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "liquidityBase": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "liquidityQuote": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "liquidityUsd": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "marketCap": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "pair": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "pairAddress": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "pairCreatedAtMs": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "priceChange": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "priceNative": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "priceUsd": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "quoteToken": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "reason": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "source": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "stale": {
+      "type": [
+        "boolean",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "ts": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "txns": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "volume": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedSep 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these annotations: the per-call cost of $0.001 USDC and the fact that the response is byte-identical to a specific GET endpoint, which helps an agent reason about cost and reproducibility. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences with no filler: a compact field list, a cost warning, and an endpoint reference. The information is front-loaded and every sentence adds useful context, though the first sentence is a long enumeration that could have been tightened slightly.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, cost, and even gives an exact example call. It does not mention potential errors or chain availability, but these are minor given the output schema and simple input requirements.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already have clear descriptions ('pool / pair address' and 'DexScreener chain id'). The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the tool as returning full DexScreener data for a single DEX pool and enumerates the specific fields (price, liquidity, volume, buy/sell counts, price changes). Stating 'single pool' distinguishes it from sibling list/search tools like market_dex_token_pairs without needing to open their schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool is for retrieving detailed data about one known pool, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as market_dex_token_pairs or market_dex_boosted_tokens. Context is present but exclusions and alternative routing are left to the agent to infer.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Crypto Bot Audit + Market Data (x402 paid) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?