DEX Pools MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_supported_dexes_by_network

Retrieve a list of supported decentralized exchanges for a given blockchain network, displayed as a formatted table with IDs and names.

Instructions

Query all supported DEXes for a specific network on GeckoTerminal and return a formatted table.

Args:
    network: The network identifier (default: "eth" for Ethereum)
    page: Page number for pagination (default: 1)

Returns:
    Formatted table as a string with columns: id, name

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": "get_supported_dexes_by_network"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`network`	No		eth
`page`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It explains the return format (formatted table with columns id, name) but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. It is assumed read-only but not explicitly stated.

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 short, front-loaded with purpose, and structured with Args and Returns sections. It contains no redundant information, though default values are repeated from the schema.

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 the tool's simplicity (two parameters) and existence of an output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, parameters, and return format. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral context, which for a query tool is acceptable but not complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the network identifier (default 'eth') and page for pagination (default 1). It adds meaning beyond the schema but could list valid network identifiers or pagination limits.

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 it queries all supported DEXes for a specific network and returns a formatted table. The verb 'Query' and resource 'supported DEXes for a specific network' are precise, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_new_pools or get_pool_details.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternatives, but the context of sibling tools implies its purpose. It lacks exclusions or guidance on when not to use this tool compared to others like get_top_pools_by_dex.

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

Deploy Server