Skip to main content
Glama

list_supported_chains

Retrieve all supported blockchain networks and their configurations for cross-chain trading operations on Paloma DEX.

Instructions

List all supported chains with their configurations.

Returns:
    JSON string with all supported chain information.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'list_supported_chains' tool. It iterates over CHAIN_CONFIGS to build and return a JSON dictionary of supported chain configurations including RPC URLs, explorers, and contract availability flags.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def list_supported_chains(ctx: Context) -> str:
        """List all supported chains with their configurations.
        
        Returns:
            JSON string with all supported chain information.
        """
        try:
            chains_info = {}
            
            for chain_id, config in CHAIN_CONFIGS.items():
                chains_info[chain_id] = {
                    "chain_id": config.chain_id,
                    "name": config.name,
                    "rpc_url": config.rpc_url,
                    "explorer_url": config.explorer_url,
                    "has_pusd_token": bool(config.pusd_token),
                    "has_pusd_connector": bool(config.pusd_connector),
                    "has_etf_connector": bool(config.etf_connector)
                }
            
            return json.dumps(chains_info, indent=2)
            
        except Exception as e:
            logger.error(f"Error listing chains: {e}")
            return f"Error listing chains: {str(e)}"
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns a JSON string with all supported chain information, which is useful context about the output format. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied but not explicit), leaving some gaps.

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?

The description is extremely concise and well-structured, consisting of only two sentences that directly state the purpose and output. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without any fluff or redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (simple list operation with no parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has room for improvement. It explains what the tool does and the return format, but for a tool with no structured output schema, it could benefit from more details on the JSON structure or example output to enhance usability.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for such cases is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and output without redundant parameter information.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all supported chains with their configurations.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('supported chains'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_chain_info', which might retrieve details for a specific chain, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used for a general overview versus 'get_chain_info' for specific chain details, or mention any prerequisites or contexts for usage. This lack of comparative or contextual advice limits its helpfulness.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/VolumeFi/mcpPADEX'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server