@true402.dev/mcp-server

new_pairs

Recently-created Base DEX pairs (Uniswap V3 + Aerodrome) from a background log-watcher — fresh token launches for trading agents/snipers. POST `{ since?, limit?, dex?, withToken?

Instructions

Recently-created Base DEX pairs (Uniswap V3 + Aerodrome) from a background log-watcher — fresh token launches for trading agents/snipers. POST { since?, limit?, dex?, withToken? }; each pair gives the new token, quote (WETH/USDC), pool, fee|stable, block + approx age. Bundle with /v1/token-safety for a pre-trade rug/honeypot check. Unpaid: free while the caller's IP has free-trial calls left that day (a small daily allowance shared across the trial stalls, no wallet); otherwise returns 402. (PAID x402 service — USDC on Base; the MCP server needs a funded wallet to settle.) Price: $0.003 USD (fixed).

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": "new_pairs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dex`	No	Filter: 'uniswap-v3' \| 'aerodrome'
`limit`	No	Max pairs (1–200, default 50)
`since`	No	Only pairs first seen at or after this block
`withToken`	No	Only token launches (default true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0Jun 28, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / dex / enum
```
Added value: +[
+  "uniswap-v3",
+  "aerodrome"
+]
```
First observedv0.7.1Jun 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the background log-watcher source, the returned pair fields, free-trial IP-based allowance, 402 fallback, x402 paid service details, USDC on Base settlement, required funded MCP wallet, and fixed price. This is unusually complete behavioral context for a paid data-feed tool.

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 dense and front-loads the purpose before moving into parameters, return fields, bundling advice, and payment terms. It is somewhat long and repeats the paid nature across multiple clauses, but every sentence carries useful operational 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 tool has no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the returned pair fields (new token, quote, pool, fee|stable, block, approximate age). It also covers payment/free-trial behavior and pre-trade safety bundling, leaving no major gap for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters and their types. The description lists the parameter names in POST syntax but adds no meaningful syntax, format, or edge-case guidance beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it lists recently-created Base DEX pairs from Uniswap V3 and Aerodrome via a background log-watcher. It clearly distinguishes the tool as a fresh token launch feed for trading agents/snipers, which is a distinct purpose from siblings like token_safety or whale_swaps.

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?

It gives clear context for use (fresh token launches for trading agents/snipers) and names a complementary alternative by recommending bundling with /v1/token-safety for a pre-trade rug/honeypot check. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare against other siblings, so it falls short of a full 5.

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