Contract security audit (honeypot, tax, ownership flags). Price and market stats→get_coin_info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lan | No | Language code (e.g. en, zh) | |
| chain | Yes | Chain name. Supported: bsc, polygon, avalanche, arbitrum, optimism, base, fantom, linea, zksync, world, gatelayer, merlin, blast, eni, bera, solana, ton, sui, tron | |
| ignore | No | Set to true to hide empty risk items | |
| address | Yes | Token contract address |
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?
The description describes a read-only audit operation, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint: false and destructiveHint: true. This is a direct contradiction. Additionally, the description adds no behavioral context about side effects, permissions, or output characteristics, so transparency fails completely.
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 sentence with a concise alternative reference. It front-loads the core purpose and wastes no words, achieving high information density in minimal space.
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 gives enough to understand the tool's scope but lacks output details and does not reconcile the annotation conflict. Since no output schema exists, the description should clarify what a typical response contains; the mention of honeypot, tax, and ownership flags partially helps, but the missing guidance on optional parameters and response shape leaves gaps for a tool with this complexity.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond listing audit fields that are output-related, not parameter-related. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description doesn't compensate for anything the schema lacks.
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 explicitly states the tool performs a contract security audit and enumerates specific checks (honeypot, tax, ownership flags). It also distinguishes this tool from get_coin_info by directing price/market stats queries there, making the purpose unambiguous and sibling-aware.
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 arrow 'Price and market stats→get_coin_info' provides a clear alternative for a different use case, implying that this tool should be used specifically for security audits. This is explicit guidance on when to use another tool, similar to top-tier examples.
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.