solanaGetTokenPricesBatch-fetch USD spot prices for one or more SPL tokens. Returns each mint's USD price plus confidence level. More efficient than calling solanaGetTokenPairPrice in a loop.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tokenMints | Yes | List of SPL mint addresses to price (1-100). Each entry is a base58 mint pubkey. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that the tool returns USD prices and confidence levels, plus a note on efficiency, which is useful but not extensive. There is no contradiction with annotations, and the behavioral context is adequate for a read-only batch price query.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by return info and efficiency note. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
For a simple read-only batch price tool, the description covers the core: what it does, what it returns, and why to choose it. There is no output schema, so a precise response shape is not specified, but the mention of 'each mint's USD price plus confidence level' provides a decent summary. Given the low complexity and strong annotations, this is nearly complete.
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%—the tokenMints parameter is fully described with type, range, and format. The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning ('one or more SPL tokens') but does not go beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Batch-fetch') and clearly identifies the resource (USD spot prices for SPL tokens). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling solanaGetTokenPairPrice by noting it is more efficient for batch operations, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 states when to use this tool—when you need to fetch prices for multiple tokens—and directly references the alternative (solanaGetTokenPairPrice) with a rationale (more efficient than looping). However, it does not explicitly mention scenarios where the pair price tool would be preferable (e.g., non-USD pairs), so it stops short of full when-not guidance.
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.
With 113 tools spanning many chains and asset classes, there is substantial overlap. For example, listPositions and getAllPositions appear to serve the same function, and there are many balance, token discovery, and collection data tools that differ mostly by chain or protocol, making misselection likely.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: most tools use camelCase with a verb (baseGetBalances, ethSwapQuote), but some use underscores (nansen_defi_portfolio), others are just bare nouns (wallet, rugcheck), and there are irregularities like solanaBalances instead of solanaGetBalances, plus hederaTokensSwapQuote vs. baseSwapQuote.
The server exposes 113 tools, far beyond the typical well-scoped set. This is an extreme mismatch with the apparent purpose of a wallet/swap server, making discovery and selection difficult for agents.
While the server offers extensive read-only data (balances, market data, NFTs, positions), it lacks core write operations: there is no actual swap execution or token transfer tool, and the referenced emblemCreateVault tool is missing. These are significant gaps that will prevent agents from completing common wallet actions.