Fetch transaction detail by on-chain hash. → swap_detail for swap order detail by order ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash_id | Yes | Transaction hash ID | |
| mcp_token | No | MCP session token obtained from login (dex_auth_google_login_poll or dex_auth_gate_login_poll). MUST be provided in every call to this tool after login; omitting it will result in 403 | |
| from_wallet | No | Optional sender wallet address filter |
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 indicates a read-only fetch operation, but the annotations declare destructiveHint=true. This is a direct contradiction: fetches are not destructive. The description does not disclose any destructive behavior or explain why the annotation is set, failing to provide the required behavioral transparency.
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 two sentences: the first states the core action, the second gives a clear pointer to the sibling tool. No fluff, fully front-loaded, and every word earns its place.
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?
Although the tool is simple and the description covers the basic operation, the annotation contradiction (destructiveHint=true) creates a significant completeness gap: the agent cannot trust the description's implied safety. Without an output schema, the description also doesn't hint at the return structure, but given the contradiction, the description is not sufficiently complete for safe invocation.
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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (hash_id, mcp_token, from_wallet), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter detail beyond mapping 'on-chain hash' to the hash_id parameter, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific action ('Fetch transaction detail by on-chain hash') and clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'swap_detail' by pointing to it for order-ID-based lookups. This is a precise verb+resource definition with explicit scoping.
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 explicitly provides an alternative: '→ swap_detail for swap order detail by order ID.' This tells the agent when to use this tool vs. a different one, making the usage context unambiguous.
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.