Price, market snapshot, metadata, optional top holders. Security audit→get_risk_info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | Blockchain network | |
| address | Yes | Token contract address | |
| include_holders | No | Include top holders (true/false, default true) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description presents the tool as a pure information retrieval operation. It does not disclose any potential side effects, auth requirements, or why the destructive hint is set. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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 very short and front-loaded with key data categories, but the telegraphic style and 'Security audit→get_risk_info' arrow are slightly cryptic. It is concise but at the expense of clarity.
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?
With no output schema and annotations indicating destructive potential, the description should clarify the return structure and side effects. It only lists data categories and an alternative tool, leaving the agent to guess about response format and behavioral edge cases.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only mentions 'optional top holders', which adds no new information over the existing schema description. It provides no extra guidance on chain or address format.
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 lists concrete return contents (price, market snapshot, metadata, optional top holders) and is backed by the tool name 'get_coin_info'. It also distinguishes itself from the risk tool by pointing to dex_token_get_risk_info for security audits, though it lacks an explicit verb.
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?
The description gives one explicit alternative ('Security audit→get_risk_info'), which clarifies when not to use this tool. However, it does not compare to other market/token siblings like dex_market_get_pair_liquidity or dex_token_ranking, so usage guidance is only partially complete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear, distinct roles (auth flows, market data, swap stages, wallet operations). A few ambiguities exist, such as dex_tx_get_sol_unsigned vs dex_tx_transfer_preview and dex_agentic_report's name not matching its description, but overall agents can reliably select the correct tool.
Naming is inconsistent: while all tools share the dex_ prefix and category segments, some use get_*, others list_*, and several are noun phrases (dex_chain_config, dex_tx_gas, dex_tx_detail). Auth tool ordering also varies (gate_login_start vs login_gate_wallet), making the pattern less predictable.
With 47 tools, the server is over-scoped and burdensome for agents to navigate. Even though the broad DEX domain justifies many features, this exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' and could benefit from consolidation into fewer, higher-level tools.
The tool set comprehensively covers DEX workflows: auth, market data, token info, wallet balances, transfer/swap pipeline, cross-chain bridge, and x402 payments. Minor gaps include lack of explicit swap cancellation or withdrawal execution, but these are secondary to the core functionality.