Central Command

Solana Multi-RPC Proxy

cc.solana_rpc

Read-onlyIdempotent

Call cc.solana_rpc — Multi-endpoint Solana RPC proxy with automatic failover (Alchemy, public, Ankr) for any JSON-RPC method. Reliable Solana access. Purpose: Multi-endpoint Solana RPC proxy with automatic failover (Alchemy, public, Ankr) for any JSON-RPC method. Reliable Solana access. Behavior: READ-ONLY. Does not place orders, move funds, or mutate your exchange account. Live / near-real-time data. Auth: X-Api-Key or x402 payment proof (X-PAYMENT / __x_payment). Anonymous unauthenticated calls receive HTTP 402 with payment accepts. Cost: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402 Base USDC pay-per-use or prepaid X-Api-Key balance). Linked Connect keys are free. This is billing, not a side effect. Rate limit: 120/min (per API key). Tier: standard. Returns: Standard Solana JSON-RPC response for any method: getBalance, getTokenAccounts, getTransaction, etc. Guidelines: Forward JSON-RPC only. Prefer eth_call / read methods. Sending raw signed txs is possible if you pass them — that is your responsibility. Tags: solana, rpc, blockchain, web3, defi.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`method`	Yes	Solana RPC method Required.
`params`	Yes	Parameter `params` (array). Required.
`__x_payment`	No	Optional x402 payment proof (same value as X-PAYMENT header). Use when retrying after HTTP 402 if your MCP client cannot set custom headers. Not a business parameter. Optional.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	True when the gateway HTTP status is 2xx.
`data`	No	Parsed JSON body from the endpoint (shape varies by slug).
`error`	No	Error message when ok is false.
`status`	Yes	Upstream HTTP status from x402-gateway.
`billing`	No	Optional payment / cost metadata when present.
`endpoint`	Yes	Catalog slug that was invoked (e.g. funding-rates).

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description explicitly states the tool is read-only, does not mutate accounts, and details authentication, billing, and rate limits. This adds significant context beyond the annotations, which already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. No contradiction.

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?

The description is structured with clear sections (Purpose, Behavior, Auth, Cost, Rate limit, Returns, Guidelines) and is relatively concise given the amount of detail. Some repetition (e.g., 'Multi-endpoint Solana RPC proxy') could be trimmed, but overall it's well-organized.

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?

Given the tool's nature as a generic proxy for Solana RPC, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, auth, billing, rate limits, and usage guidelines. Output schema is implied (standard Solana JSON-RPC response), so no further explanation needed.

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?

While schema coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter names, the tool description adds little beyond stating the method is 'Solana RPC method' and params is an array. The additional context about __x_payment is useful but basic. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents parameters.

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 description clearly identifies the tool as a Solana Multi-RPC proxy for any JSON-RPC method with automatic failover. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that are trading or data specific by focusing on generic Solana RPC access.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides guidance on when to use this tool (any Solana JSON-RPC method) and includes a preference for read methods, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives among siblings. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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

All Central Command tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Many tools serve overlapping purposes, such as multiple Coinglass data tools (cc.coinglass_data, cc.funding_rates, cc.open_interest, etc.) and multiple AI chat assistants (cc.squirrel_chat, cc.squirrel_chat_v2, cc.openclaw_chat). The distinctions are subtle, likely causing agent misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent `cc.<snake_case>` pattern, with verbs like `list_catalog`, `cc.ma_fetch`, and `cc.trade_builder`. No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the high side but reasonable for a comprehensive crypto trading platform. However, significant redundancy (e.g., multiple data sources for similar indicators) suggests some could be consolidated, making the surface feel heavier than necessary.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers most aspects of crypto trading: market data, technical indicators, signals, execution, backtesting, AI analysis, and blockchain RPC. Minor gaps exist (e.g., portfolio management), but the surface is largely complete for the intended domain.

Resources

Need Help?