Tokens launched within a given time window; chain optional for all networks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | Yes | End of creation time range (RFC3339, e.g. 2025-01-02T00:00:00Z) | |
| chain | No | Optional chain filter; omit for all chains | |
| limit | No | Max number of tokens (1-100, default 20) | |
| start | Yes | Start of creation time range (RFC3339, e.g. 2025-01-01T00:00:00Z) |
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, but the description does not disclose any destructive behavior, nor does it address openWorldHint or idempotentHint false. This leaves a significant transparency gap, as agents may assume a safe read operation based on the 'get' framing.
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, front-loaded with the main action and no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core functionality.
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 description omits return format, pagination, and any explanation for the destructiveHint annotation. Given the tool's query nature and the surprising annotations, more context on side effects or data scope would be necessary for complete understanding.
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 schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'chain optional for all networks,' which duplicates the schema's info and provides no new semantic value.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves tokens launched within a time window, with optional chain filtering. This is specific and distinguishes it from other token-related tools like dex_token_list_swap_tokens or dex_token_ranking.
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 implies usage for finding tokens by creation time but offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other token listing tools. No alternatives are mentioned, so usage context is only implied rather than explicit.
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.