Returns the AMMs / DEX sources SwapWizard routes across per chain. Each DEX includes its display name and slug (e.g. "uniswap-v3") — use the slug as the 'project' filter in search_liquidity_pools to filter pools by protocol.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chainId | No | EVM chain ID to filter results. If omitted, returns protocols for all supported chains. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns data (DEX sources) but does not explicitly state it is read-only or side-effect free. While not misleading, it could be more explicit about safety.
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?
Two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second adds critical usage detail. No redundant words, every sentence earns its place.
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 has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers its functionality (what it does, what it returns, and how to use the output). It is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke it.
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 input schema describes chainId with a decent description (filter by chain ID, omit for all). Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining the return format (display name + slug) and how to use the slug, raising the score to 4.
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 returns AMM/DEX sources that SwapWizard routes across per chain, specifying each DEX includes display name and slug. It distinguishes purpose by linking the slug to filter pools in search_liquidity_pools, a sibling 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?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (to get supported DEX sources) and explicitly instructs how to use the returned slug as a filter for search_liquidity_pools. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the cross-reference is sufficient.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: pool analysis, health check, quotes (standard and clean), setup guide, chain/DEX info, LP position listing, pool search, and zap in/out. No two tools overlap in functionality.
All tool names use snake_case, but the verb prefixes are not uniform: some use 'get_*', others use 'analyze_', 'check_', 'list_', 'search_', 'zap_'. While still clear, a more consistent prefix pattern would improve predictability.
11 tools cover the full scope of a DeFi liquidity management server: discovery, analysis, quoting, entry/exit, and auxiliary info. No redundant tools, and the count is well within the optimal range.
The tool surface covers all essential operations for liquidity management: pool search and analysis, swap quotes, position listing, and single-transaction zap in/out. No critical gaps are evident.