Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Dexscreener

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Token

get_token
Read-onlyIdempotent

All trading pairs for a token address on one chain. If calling by bare name is ambiguous (collides with blockscout_get_token), call this as dexscreener_get_token instead.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainYesChain id
token_addressYesToken contract address

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainYesChain id that was queried
pairsYesPools trading this token on that chain
pair_countYesNumber of pools returned (>=1; an empty result raises not_found)
token_addressYesToken contract address that was queried

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed18 schema fields changed
    • changedOutput schema / description
      Previous value: -"Token with all trading pairs response"New value: +"Every DEX Screener pool for one token address on one chain"
    • addedOutput schema / properties / chain
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Chain id that was queried",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / pair_count
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Number of pools returned (>=1; an empty result raises not_found)",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / pairs / description
      Previous value: -"Array of trading pairs for the token"New value: +"Pools trading this token on that chain"
    • addedOutput schema / properties / pairs / items / properties / baseToken / description
      Added value: +"Base token address/name/symbol"
    • addedOutput schema / properties / pairs / items / properties / fdv / description
      Added value: +"Fully diluted valuation"
    • addedOutput schema / properties / pairs / items / properties / liquidity / description
      Added value: +"Liquidity in USD and both tokens"
    • addedOutput schema / properties / pairs / items / properties / marketCap
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Market capitalisation",
+  "type": [
+    "number",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / pairs / items / properties / priceNative / description
      Added value: +"Price in the quote token"
    • addedOutput schema / properties / pairs / items / properties / priceUsd / description
      Added value: +"Price in USD"
    • changedOutput schema / properties / pairs / items / properties / priceUsd / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / pairs / items / properties / quoteToken / description
      Added value: +"Quote token address/name/symbol"
    • addedOutput schema / properties / pairs / items / properties / txns / description
      Added value: +"Buy/sell counts over m5/h1/h6/h24"
    • addedOutput schema / properties / pairs / items / properties / volume / description
      Added value: +"Volume over m5/h1/h6/h24"
    • changedOutput schema / properties / pairs / type
      Previous value: -[
-  "array",
-  "null"
-]New value: +"array"
    • removedOutput schema / properties / schemaVersion
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "API schema version",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / token_address
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Token contract address that was queried",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "chain",
+  "token_address",
+  "pair_count",
+  "pairs"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result spans ALL pairs for a token on a single chain, which is genuinely useful behavioral scope, but it discloses nothing about rate limits, result size, or ambiguity handling beyond naming.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the disambiguation note following. Each sentence earns its place.

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 2-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema handling return values, the description covers purpose and scope adequately. Minor gaps around multi-chain behavior and result handling are acceptable against the existing structured data.

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%, so chain and token_address are already documented. The description's phrase 'token address on one chain' loosely restates the two parameters but adds no format, syntax, or chain-id conventions beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific resource and scope: 'All trading pairs for a token address on one chain.' This is distinguishable from single-pair siblings like get_pair and from search siblings like search_pairs. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from those functional siblings by name, but the resource+scope is precise.

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 only guidance is about invocation naming ('call this as dexscreener_get_token' when the bare name collides). That is useful for selection under ambiguity but says nothing about when to prefer this tool over get_pair or search_pairs for the underlying task.

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
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