Multichain DEX router: free MCP tools for swap-quote prices, chains, catalog; paid via x402.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: catalog provides overall info, chains lists supported chains, price_offer gets pricing details. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow the pattern 'routheus_<noun>', where the noun describes the resource: catalog, chains, price_offer. Consistent and predictable.
Three tools is minimal but sufficient for the server's purpose of providing product info and pricing. Could include an execution tool, but the delegation to x402 client keeps it concise.
Covers the essential operations: catalog, chain listing, and pricing/offer retrieval. The missing swap execution is intentionally delegated to an external client, so no critical gap.
routheus_catalogAInspectGet the live Routheus product catalog: DEX endpoints, the FREE tier (single-input swap quotes and quote+calldata are free, rate-limited per IP — no payment or key), per-call USDC prices for paid products, supported EVM chains, x402 payment details, and a contact email for custom/higher-limit plans. Call this first to learn what's available, what's free, and what costs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Details tool's read-only nature (getting catalog), free tier with rate limits, and response composition. Does not mention authentication or side effects, but those are implicit for a read-only catalog tool.
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?
Single sentence but efficiently lists key contents and purpose. Front-loaded with the main action. Could be slightly more concise, but no wasted words.
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?
Description is fully self-contained for a discovery tool with no parameters and no output schema. It explains what the tool returns, why to use it, and how it relates to free vs. paid products. No gaps.
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?
No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by explaining what the returned catalog contains beyond the empty schema, effectively compensating for the lack of parameters.
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?
Clearly states it retrieves the live Routheus product catalog with specific contents (DEX endpoints, free tier, paid products, etc.). Distinguishes from siblings like routheus_chains and routheus_price_offer by being the first-stop discovery 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?
Explicitly instructs 'Call this first to learn what's available, what's free, and what costs,' providing clear usage context. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative references, but the directive is strong and appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
routheus_chainsAInspectList the DEX chains Routheus can quote on, with accepted path aliases (canonical slug, chain name, or EIP-155 id — e.g. eth = ethereum = 1).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states basic behavior (listing chains). It does not disclose any constraints, side effects, or requirements beyond what is obvious.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words.
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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return data (chains and aliases) and even provides example alias formats. It is adequate for a simple listing tool.
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?
There are no parameters in the input schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the output contains (chains and accepted aliases).
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 tool lists DEX chains routheus can quote on, including accepted path aliases. It distinguishes from sibling tools like routheus_catalog and routheus_price_offer.
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 retrieving chain information but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
routheus_price_offerAInspectGet the price for a specific product, WITHOUT paying. For quote and quote_calldata it reports that a rate-limited FREE tier exists (call the returned URL with no X-PAYMENT header to use it); for all products it returns the exact x402 USDC offer and the ready-to-call HTTP URL. To get paid data, call that URL with an x402 client (x402-fetch / @x402/fetch / AgentKit).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | Chain slug/name/id, e.g. base, ethereum, 1 | |
| product | Yes | Which product to price |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description covers behavioral traits: it is read-only, says whether a free tier exists for certain products, and explains the return of an offer and URL. It does not contradict any 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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds meaningful information 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?
For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the functionality, return value, and usage of the URL. It could mention error handling but is otherwise complete.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context about free tier for specific enum values, but the schema already provides the product list and chain examples. The additional value is moderate, so baseline 3.
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 tool's purpose: 'Get the price for a specific product, WITHOUT paying.' It specifies the free tier for quote and quote_calldata, and distinguishes from siblings (catalog and chains) by focusing on pricing.
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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to get a price without paying) and how to proceed for paid data (call the returned URL with an x402 client). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but siblings are sufficiently different.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
