Skip to main content
Glama

Dexscreener

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Entity Profile

entity_profile
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Tell me about X" / "research Acme" / "brief me on Tesla" / "what does Apple do" / "company profile for Microsoft" / "give me the rundown on NVDA" / "everything you know about $TICKER" — full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call. ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view. Fans out across SEC EDGAR, XBRL, USPTO, news, GLEIF and returns: cik + company_name; recent_filings (up to 5 with pipeworx://edgar/company/{cik}/filings/{accession} URIs); fundamentals (LATEST 10-K Revenues + NetIncomeLoss + Cash, sorted period_end DESC); patents (USPTO PatentsView API sunset May 2025 — soft-fails until reactivated); recent news mentions via GDELT→GNews fallback; LEI via GLEIF. Pass ticker "AAPL" or zero-padded CIK "0000320193" — names not supported (use resolve_entity first if you only have a name).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesEntity type. Only "company" supported today; person/place coming soon.
valueYesTicker (e.g., "AAPL") or zero-padded CIK (e.g., "0000320193"). Names not supported — use resolve_entity first if you only have a name.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds rich detail: fans out across multiple sources, returns specific data fields, patent API sunset, GDELT→GNews fallback. No contradictions.

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?

The description is lengthy but well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, though minor redundancy exists (e.g., repeating input constraints). Efficient for its complexity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, yet the description fully enumerates all return fields (cik, filings, fundamentals, patents, news, LEI) and explains sources, fallbacks, and constraints. For a multi-source tool, this is thorough and complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description adds context beyond the schema: confirms names unsupported and directs to resolve_entity. This extra guidance justifies a 4.

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 is extremely clear: 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call.' It uses multiple example queries and explicitly distinguishes itself from chaining multiple data sources. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('holistic view') and what to use instead for names ('resolve_entity first'). It also notes a soft-fail for patents and constraints on input format (ticker or CIK), providing clear usage boundaries.

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

All Dexscreener 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve question-answering/research, and the six polymarket_* tools cover closely related prediction-market analysis. Long descriptions help differentiate them, but an agent could easily pick the wrong near-duplicate.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and readable, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern: some are verbs (search_pairs, validate_claim), some noun phrases (latest_token_profiles, entity_profile), and some prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*) cover only subsets. The naming is understandable but stylistically mixed.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is far too many for a server labeled Dexscreener, especially since the majority of tools have nothing to do with DEX data. Even if this is intended as an all-in-one data/research server, the count exceeds what the apparent scope justifies and many tools feel bolted on.

Completeness4/5

For the DEX Screener domain, the core surface is covered: pair lookup, token lookup, search, latest profiles, and boosts. The broader Pipeworx/prediction-market side also has strong coverage with memory, subscriptions, entity resolution, and research tools. Minor gaps exist — some tools feel redundant or exploratory — but there are no critical dead-end workflows.

Resources