hummingbot-mcp

explore_dex_pools

Browse and filter concentrated liquidity pools on Meteora, Raydium, and Uniswap V3. Compare yields, TVL, and volume, then get detailed pool information by address.

Instructions

Explore DeFi CLMM pools — discover pools, compare yields, and get pool details.

Supports CLMM DEX connectors (Meteora, Raydium, Uniswap V3) for concentrated liquidity.

- list_pools: Browse available CLMM pools with filtering and sorting
- get_pool_info: Get detailed information about a specific pool (requires network + pool_address)

To manage LP positions, use `manage_executors` with `lp_executor` type.
To check on-chain positions, use `get_portfolio_overview` with `include_lp_positions=True`.

Args:
    action: Action to perform on CLMM pools.
    connector: CLMM connector name (e.g., 'meteora', 'raydium', 'uniswap'). Required.
    network: Network ID in 'chain-network' format (e.g., 'solana-mainnet-beta'). Required for get_pool_info.
    pool_address: Pool contract address (required for get_pool_info).
    page: Page number for list_pools (default: 0).
    limit: Results per page for list_pools (default: 50, max: 100).
    search_term: Search term to filter pools by token symbols (e.g., 'SOL', 'USDC').
    sort_key: Sort by field for list_pools (volume, tvl, feetvlratio, etc.).
    order_by: Sort order for list_pools ('asc' or 'desc').
    include_unknown: Include pools with unverified tokens (default: True).
    detailed: Return detailed table with more columns for list_pools (default: False).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`action`	Yes
`connector`	No
`network`	No
`pool_address`	No
`page`	No
`limit`	No
`search_term`	No
`sort_key`	No	volume
`order_by`	No	desc
`include_unknown`	No
`detailed`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.4Apr 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only (explore), lists supported actions, and mentions default values for parameters. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The lack of explicit read-only declaration is a minor gap.

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 well-structured with bullet points and separate sections for actions, arguments, and cross-references. It front-loads the main purpose. However, some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating parameter details in the bullet list that are also in the schema), and the length could be trimmed slightly without losing essential information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the complexity (11 parameters, 2 actions, no output schema), the description is thorough. It covers usage instructions, parameter semantics, and references to sibling tools. All necessary information for correct invocation is present, with no gaps.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by providing detailed explanations for all 11 parameters, including defaults and constraints (e.g., limit max 100). Each parameter's purpose and when it's required (e.g., network for get_pool_info) are clearly described.

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?

The description clearly states the tool explores DeFi CLMM pools, lists pools, and gets pool details. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing 'manage_executors' for LP positions and 'get_portfolio_overview' for on-chain positions, making the tool's specific role unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly explains when to use each action (list_pools vs get_pool_info) and provides cross-references to sibling tools for related tasks (LP management, portfolio overview). It also lists supported DEX connectors, giving clear context.

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

Deploy Server

explore_dex_pools

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools