Fetch swap order detail by order ID from swap_submit. → tx_detail for detail by on-chain hash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |
| tx_order_id | Yes | Transaction order ID from dex_tx_swap_submit |
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 says 'Fetch', which implies a read-only operation, but the annotations declare `destructiveHint: true`. This is a direct contradiction: the tool is described as a safe retrieval while the annotation suggests it may destroy or mutate data. The description also does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits, putting full burden on the description for 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 a single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the action and the source, followed by a useful pointer to an alternative tool. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the key purpose.
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 adequately distinguishes the tool from siblings and explains its basic purpose, but it omits the critical behavioral implication from `destructiveHint: true`. It does not mention whether the fetch has side effects or what happens to the order, and there is no output schema to clarify return values. This makes the description incomplete for safe and correct usage.
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 both parameters (`mcp_token` and `tx_order_id`) with detailed descriptions, giving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the primary purpose ('Fetch swap order detail by order ID'), identifies the source ('from swap_submit'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'dex_tx_detail' by pointing to that tool for on-chain hash lookups. This is a specific verb+resource+scope with clear differentiation.
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?
It explicitly says to use this tool when you have an order ID from swap_submit, and directs users to `tx_detail` for detail by on-chain hash. This provides clear when-to-use and an explicit alternative, which is excellent guidance for tool selection.
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.