Retrieve real-time DEX price, 24h volume, liquidity, and top pair statistics across chains by providing a token symbol or contract address.
Fetch real-time DEX price, 24h volume, liquidity, and top pair stats across chains
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Token symbol or contract address |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool fetches real-time data points, implying a read-only operation, but it does not mention potential limitations, such as the ambiguity of token symbols or whether an exact contract address is required. Some details are missing but the core behavior is conveyed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that lists the tool's primary outputs without any redundancy. It is front-loaded and immediately comprehensible, earning a high score for structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description lists the intended outputs (price, volume, liquidity, pair stats), which gives a sufficient overview of what the tool returns. It lacks details on response structure or error handling, but for this level of complexity it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full coverage for the single parameter 'query' with the description 'Token symbol or contract address.' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource: real-time DEX price, 24h volume, liquidity, and top pair stats across chains. It effectively distinguishes this tool from the unrelated sibling tools by focusing on DEX market data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit usage guidance is provided, such as when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the purpose is clear enough that the usage is implied: when a user needs DEX token metrics. Since there are no closely related sibling tools, the lack of exclusions is acceptable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.