Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GDEX Trading

GDEX Trading

by GemachDAO
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

gdex_add_funds

Add funds to a GDEX account using Apple Pay, card, or crypto; returns a checkout link or deposit details plus a funding operation to track until USDC is credited.

Instructions

Add money to the account. method apple_pay or card: returns the checkout link for the provider gdex.pro uses (Meld) and the exact steps (receive USDC on the given network, paste the shown GDEX wallet address); the provider shows the real charge, fees and minimum. method crypto: returns the deposit address, network and token. Either way returns a funding operation: follow it with gdex_operation; it reports credited only when USDC is in the wallet, and a pending funding is resumed instead of starting a second payment. Funding never authorizes a trade.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "accountRef": "<accountRef>",
      "method": "<method>"
    },
    "name": "gdex_add_funds"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoWhere the USDC should land (default base). Pick the chain of the trade the user wants.
methodYes
amountUsdNoWhat the user wants to pay, in USD (shown in the steps; the provider sets the final charge)
accountRefYes
newPaymentNoOnly when the user explicitly wants a second payment while one is pending

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv5.3.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With only openWorld and non-destructive hints from annotations, the description adds substantial detail: what each method returns, that the provider sets the real charge/fees/minimum, that status is only 'credited' once USDC lands, and that a pending funding resumes rather than double-charging. These are behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action, then organized by method and post-call behavior. Dense but every clause carries useful workflow information; slightly wordy but no filler.

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?

For a 5-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape and the required follow-up operation well. The only shortfall is that accountRef and the newPayment flag are not explained in prose, though newPayment is documented in the schema.

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 60%, and the description compensates by explaining method semantics (apple_pay/card vs crypto), that chain is the network where USDC should land, and that amountUsd is shown but the provider sets the final charge. accountRef and newPayment are not elaborated in the description, leaving some gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Add money to the account') and then breaks down what each method returns (checkout link for Meld vs. deposit address/network/token). It also positions the tool against the workflow by naming gdex_operation as the follow-up and clarifying 'Funding never authorizes a trade', separating it from trade-execution siblings.

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?

Gives clear method-selection context (apple_pay/card vs crypto) and the required follow-up ('follow it with gdex_operation'), plus the pending-payment resume behavior. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool versus alternatives like gdex_execute_trade, but the funding-vs-trade boundary is implied.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools