latest_token_profilesNewest token profiles created (cross-chain).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profiles | No | Latest token profiles | |
| schemaVersion | No | API schema version |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which cover safety and behavioral traits. The description adds the 'cross-chain' scope, but does not reveal additional behavioral details beyond annotations.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the core purpose and fits within a short format, earning its place without redundancy.
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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, rich annotations, output schema present), the description is fully adequate. It provides enough context for the agent to understand the tool's function and scope.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics; a baseline of 4 is appropriate as no further detail is required.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('created'), resource ('token profiles'), and scope ('newest', 'cross-chain'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'latest_boosted_tokens' or 'get_token' by focusing on profiles across chains.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives, no exclusions, and no context on prerequisites or limitations. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.