FortFi Treasury MCP

propose_solana_swap

Propose a Solana Jupiter swap. Autonomous agents: inline quote by default, or previewQuoteId for two-step review. confirm signs the bound quote.

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": {
      "fromWalletId": "<fromWalletId>",
      "toWalletId": "<toWalletId>",
      "sellMint": "<sellMint>",
      "buyMint": "<buyMint>",
      "sellSymbol": "<sellSymbol>",
      "buySymbol": "<buySymbol>",
      "amountUsd": "<amountUsd>"
    },
    "name": "propose_solana_swap"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`buyMint`	Yes	Mint address of token to buy
`sellMint`	Yes	Mint address of token to sell
`amountUsd`	Yes	Sell amount in USD
`buySymbol`	Yes	Human-readable buy symbol
`sellSymbol`	Yes	Human-readable sell symbol
`toWalletId`	Yes	Solana wallet id to receive (can be same as fromWalletId)
`fromWalletId`	Yes	Solana wallet id to sell from
`previewQuoteId`	No	Optional — from preview_swap_quote for explicit quote review before propose
`slippagePercent`	No	Optional slippage tolerance 0–50 (default 0.5)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses that this is a proposal (not an immediate execution) and that signing occurs via a separate confirm step — important for a financial mutation. It omits authorization/policy requirements, whether the proposal expires, and what happens if a quote is stale, which are material gaps for a swap tool.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the action comes first and the mode selection second. It is dense but efficient, losing a point only because 'Autonomous agents:' framing is slightly ambiguous about who the audience is.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a nine-parameter financial mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the propose/confirm workflow but omits safety context (approvals, policy limits, reversibility) and return expectations. Adequate to start the flow, not complete for correct use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all nine parameters are already documented, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds a bit of meaning for previewQuoteId by tying it to an explicit review step, but says nothing about slippagePercent (default 0.5, bound 0-50) or wallet/Mint pairing beyond what the schema states.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource — 'Propose a Solana Jupiter swap' — which separates it from preview_swap_quote and generic propose_swap. It does not explicitly name which sibling it is not, so it falls short of a 5, but an agent can identify the action 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 Guidelines3/5

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

It sketches two modes (inline quote by default vs previewQuoteId for two-step review) and notes 'confirm signs the bound quote', which implies the propose-then-confirm lifecycle. However, with preview_swap_quote and propose_swap both present as siblings, it never says when to pick those instead, so routing is left to inference.

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

All FortFi Treasury MCP 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?