sui-mcp-server

cetus_get_pools

Find Cetus CLMM liquidity pools by specifying two coin types. Retrieve pool addresses, liquidity, and fee rates for DeFi analysis.

Instructions

Query Cetus CLMM pools by coin types. Returns pool addresses, liquidity, and fee rates.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "cetus_get_pools"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`coinTypeA`	No	Coin type A (e.g. 0x2::sui::SUI). Use 'SUI', 'USDC', 'USDT', 'WETH', 'DEEP' as shortcuts.
`coinTypeB`	No	Coin type B
`limit`	No	Max pools (default: 10)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.3May 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Describes the return data (pool addresses, liquidity, fee rates) which adds behavioral context. Without annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does not disclose rate limits or idempotency, but for a query tool the behavioral info is sufficient. No contradiction with annotations (none provided).

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details. Every word 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?

Given no output schema and three parameters described well in schema, the description is fairly complete. It could mention pagination or result ordering, but it is adequate for a simple query tool. The tool is low complexity, so this level of detail is sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters documented in schema). The description adds value by noting shortcuts for common token names ('SUI', 'USDC', etc.) and explaining the limit parameter's default value (10). This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Clearly states it queries Cetus CLMM pools by coin types and lists return fields (addresses, liquidity, fee rates). The verb 'Query' is specific and the resource 'Cetus CLMM pools' is well-defined, distinguishing it from siblings like 'cetus_get_pool' (singular) and 'deepbook_get_pool' (different DEX).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Indicates usage by coin types ('by coin types'), which is clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings. The context from sibling tool names helps differentiate, but the description itself lacks exclusionary guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server