bca-mcp

get_pair_data

Retrieve liquidity, 24h volume, pair age, and price for a DEX pair on a given blockchain using DexScreener data.

Instructions

DEX pair analytics: liquidity, 24h volume, pair age, price. Via DexScreener. Starter tier.

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": {
      "chain": "<chain>",
      "pair": "<pair>"
    },
    "name": "get_pair_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	Yes	Chain slug (e.g. 'ethereum', 'solana', 'bsc').
`pair`	Yes	Pair contract address.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1May 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only adds 'Via DexScreener' and 'Starter tier' which hint at data source and access limits but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, error handling, or caching behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the key purpose 'DEX pair analytics' and lists output fields. It efficiently conveys source and tier. Could be slightly more structured but is concise and to the point.

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?

With two parameters and no output schema, the description lists some output fields (liquidity, volume, age, price) which helps set expectations. However, it omits details like data format, time range for volume, and whether the pair address is checked for validity. Adequate but not fully complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for chain and pair. The description adds no additional parameter guidance beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it provides DEX pair analytics including liquidity, 24h volume, pair age, price. It identifies the resource (DEX pair) and specific data fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_price which likely returns only price. However, it could be more explicit about the action (e.g., 'retrieves') and the exact scope.

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 mentions 'Via DexScreener. Starter tier.' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_price, get_ohlc, or other analytics tools. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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

Deploy Server