List Alpha tokens.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| chain | No | Chain: solana, eth, bsc, base, world, sui, arbitrum, avalanche, polygon, linea, optimism, zksync, gatelayer | |
| address | No | Query by contract address | |
| launch_platform | No | Launch platform: meteora_dbc, fourmeme, moonshot, pump, raydium_launchlab, letsbonk, gatefun, virtuals |
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 already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds nothing about pagination, filtering behavior, response format, or other operational traits, thus failing to contribute beyond what annotations and schema provide.
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 extremely short but constitutes under-specification rather than efficient concision. It repeats the tool name without elaboration, which does not earn its place. Similar to the calibration example 'Process', the brevity lacks substantive content.
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 tool has 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and two closely related sibling tools (alpha_currencies, alpha_tickers). The description does not explain what 'Alpha tokens' are, what the response includes, or how this tool differs from siblings, leaving substantial gaps for an agent to operate correctly.
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 provides full descriptions (100% coverage) for all 4 parameters: page, chain, address, and launch_platform. The description 'List Alpha tokens' adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already contains, so the baseline 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 'List Alpha tokens' simply restates the tool name (cex_alpha_list_alpha_tokens) with no additional information. It fails to distinguish the tool from siblings like cex_alpha_list_alpha_currencies or cex_alpha_list_alpha_tickers, making it a tautology with no differentiating value.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the presence of similar sibling listing tools, the agent is left without context 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.
Every tool is clearly scoped by its domain prefix (spot, fx, options, etc.) and resource type, with no two tools serving the same purpose. Even similar data types like candlesticks and order books are unambiguously separated by market.
The naming follows a strong pattern: cex_<domain>_<verb>_<resource>. However, the use of 'get' vs 'list' is occasionally inconsistent (e.g., cex_fx_get_fx_tickers vs cex_spot_list_currencies), and some names are verbose with version suffixes like 'v4'.
With 63 tools, this is an extreme count that will overwhelm an agent. While the breadth covers many product lines, the vast number of endpoints makes selection difficult and violates the typical scope for an MCP server.
The tool surface comprehensively covers public market data across spot, futures, options, delivery, earn, margin, lending, launch, and social products. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no historical trade depth, no single-ticker convenience methods), but the core data needs are fully addressed.