Solana Trading & Live Data — PumpView

get_swap_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check an existing account swap after submission, including after a timeout.

    Requires the owning account's Bearer key; no data credits consumed. Returns
    id, signature, status and receipt. States are built, submitted, confirmed,
    finalized, failed or expired. Execution receipts start at confirmed and may
    still be null while RPC metadata catches up. Poll this ID with backoff within
    the account rate limit; use get_trading_usage for aggregate volume. This call
    refreshes stored status/receipts but never submits, signs or rebuilds a trade.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`swap_id`	Yes	PumpView id returned by build_swap for this account, not a Solana signature or request_id.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	PumpView swap ID (32 lowercase hex characters), passed as swap_id to status and submit tools.
`tips`	No	Total tip and transfer destinations for wallet review, in lamports.
`error`	No	Failure information if present. Preserve the swap ID and inspect status before deciding on any new intent.
`status`	Yes	Lifecycle state: built, submitted, confirmed, finalized, failed, or expired. A send timeout may leave state uncertain; poll this ID.
`receipt`	No	Actual execution details from confirmed onward; null before confirmation or while RPC transaction metadata is pending.
`signature`	No	Solana transaction signature, or null before submission. Not interchangeable with the PumpView swap ID.
`expires_at`	No	Unsigned build expiry as Unix seconds; not proof that a submitted transaction failed.
`request_id`	No	Original client-generated idempotency key for this intent.
`input_amount`	No	Exact input amount as a string of integer atomic units.
`platform_fee`	No	Fee basis points, mint, recipient account and calculation basis.
`transaction_base64`	No	Unsigned Solana v0 transaction for local wallet signing; only returned for a build still in built state.
`network_fee_lamports`	No	Estimated total network fee for the built message, as an integer string.
`minimum_output_amount`	No	Slippage-protected output threshold in atomic units to review before signing.
`expected_output_amount`	No	Quoted output in atomic units; execution may differ within the slippage bound.
`last_valid_block_height`	No	Last block height accepted by the transaction blockhash.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses auth requirements (owning account's Bearer key), cost (no data credits consumed), the status lifecycle, and the caveat that receipts may be null while RPC metadata catches up. It also explicitly bounds behavior: 'never submits, signs or rebuilds a trade' and only refreshes stored status/receipts.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and each subsequent sentence carries distinct information (auth, cost, return fields, lifecycle, polling, refresh semantics). It is dense but not padded; the only minor cost is length in the middle section.

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?

For a read-only status poller with a full output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: auth, cost, the meaning of each state, the null-receipt edge case, polling discipline, and the guarantee that no write occurs. Nothing material is missing.

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% and the swap_id field is already documented as a PumpView id rather than a Solana signature or request_id. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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 description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Check an existing account swap after submission') and scopes it temporally ('after submission, including after a timeout'). This clearly distinguishes it from build_swap and submit_swap, which are the natural confusable siblings.

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?

It states when to call (after submission, after a timeout), how to call repeatedly ('Poll this ID with backoff within the account rate limit'), and explicitly routes the agent elsewhere for a related need ('use get_trading_usage for aggregate volume'). Exclusions and alternatives are named, not implied.

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

All Solana Trading & Live Data — PumpView 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?