search_pairsFree-text search across all DEX Screener chains for trading pairs matching a token name, symbol, or address. Returns up to 30 pairs with price USD, liquidity, 24h volume, and chain/DEX info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pairs | No | Up to 30 matching pairs | |
| schemaVersion | No | API schema version |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and nondestructive behavior. The description adds context about the result set size (up to 30 pairs) and included fields (price, liquidity, volume, chain/DEX info), which is valuable beyond the 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 two sentences long, with the first sentence front-loading the action and scope. Every word adds value, and no extraneous information is present.
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 (one required parameter), rich annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers input semantics and output summary. No further details are necessary for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains that the query can be a token name, symbol, or address. The input schema examples further illustrate multi-word queries like 'USDC ETH' and 'SOL USDT solana', fully compensating for the lack of parameter description.
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 it performs a free-text search across all DEX Screener chains for trading pairs, matching by token name, symbol, or address. It specifies the output includes up to 30 pairs with key financial and chain details, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_pair (specific pair) or get_token (token info).
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?
The description implies usage for broad search queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_pair for a known token address). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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.