A.U.G.U.R Synapse

Token prices

price

Read-onlyIdempotent

USD price, 24h change and liquidity for up to 100 Solana mints; flags illiquid (dead) tokens. Jupiter price data with a liquidity floor: anything under $1,000 of liquidity is flagged dead, because round-trip quotes on dead curves look fine and are not. When to use: For Solana mints by address; for majors or other chains by symbol use crypto_price (callable here by name). Price: free. Errors: returns isError with a message for invalid input or an upstream failure (not charged).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "mints": "<mints>"
    },
    "name": "price"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mints`	Yes	Solana token mint addresses (base58) to price. 1-100 items.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`prices`	No
`source`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 27, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / mints / description

Added value: +"Solana token mint addresses (base58) to price. 1-100 items."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "prices": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "change_24h_pct": {
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "dead": {
+            "type": [
+              "boolean",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "liquidity_usd": {
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "mint": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "usd": {
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "type": [
+          "object",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "source": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral depth beyond them: the $1,000 liquidity floor, why dead-curve round-trip quotes are misleading, and that upstream failures return isError without being charged. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core capability, then rationale, routing, and cost/error notes in descending priority. Slightly dense in the middle sentence, but each clause (liquidity floor, dead-flag rationale) carries information an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Input bounds, routing to the alternative, cost, and failure semantics are all present, leaving no gap for a single-parameter read tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the base58 mint list and the 1-100 bound; the description's 'up to 100 Solana mints' is essentially a restatement. It adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence names the resource (Solana mints), the returned fields (USD price, 24h change, liquidity), the batch limit (up to 100), and a distinctive behavior (illiquid/dead flagging). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the named alternative crypto_price by input type (address vs symbol). An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'When to use' clause gives a concrete routing rule: Solana mints by address here, majors/other chains by symbol via crypto_price. It also states cost ('Price: free') and error behavior ('returns isError ... not charged'), covering when-not-to-expect-success.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All A.U.G.U.R Synapse tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?