Base token MARKET data (liquidity, 24h volume, price + change, pool age, buy/sell flow, mechanical flags) from public DEX pools. Market data, NOT a trust/safety rating. Best used as an input to get_token_brief. x402-paid at GET/POST /token ($0.01; 3 free per wallet via ?wallet=0x…).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addr | Yes | 0x Base token address |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / addr / descriptionAdded value: +"0x Base token address"Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "addr"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It correctly identifies the tool as market data (not a trust rating) and discloses API cost and free tier. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature or potential side effects, though the data-focused description implies no mutations.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. Key information is front-loaded: what it does, what it returns, and how it should be used.
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?
Given only one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of the data returned (liquidity, volume, price, etc.) and its use case. Could be slightly more explicit about the return format (e.g., JSON object), but sufficient for an AI agent.
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 has 100% coverage with description for the single 'addr' parameter. The description adds context about 'public DEX pools' but adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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?
Description explicitly states it returns 'Base token MARKET data' with specific metrics (liquidity, volume, price, etc.) and clarifies it is not a trust/safety rating. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_token_brief by positioning itself as input to that tool.
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?
Provides clear guidance: 'Best used as an input to get_token_brief' and mentions cost and free usage (3 free per wallet). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.
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.