SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Jupiter aggregator quote on Solana for an exact-input swap

crypto_jupiter_solana_routing

Read-only

Jupiter aggregator quote on Solana for an exact-input swap: input and output amounts in base units, price impact %, USD value, slippage, and the AMM route legs (venue labels). Quote only, no transaction. Amounts stay in the token's smallest unit (decimals are not looked up). Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_solana_token_extensions when you need Solana SPL mint audit from the chain: program, authorities; crypto_solana_validator_cluster when you need Solana validator snapshot from the public RPC: active. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are 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": {
      "inputMint": "<inputMint>",
      "outputMint": "<outputMint>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "crypto_jupiter_solana_routing"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amount`	Yes	Amount to sell in the smallest unit (lamports for SOL)
`inputMint`	Yes	Mint to sell (base58), e.g. SOL wrapped mint So11111111111111111111111111111111111111112
`outputMint`	Yes	Mint to buy (base58)
`slippageBps`	No	Slippage tolerance in basis points, 1 to 1000 (default 50)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	No
`inAmount`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`inputMint`	No
`outAmount`	No
`routeLegs`	No
`outputMint`	No
`routeVenues`	No
`slippageBps`	No
`swapUsdValue`	No
`priceImpactPct`	No
`otherAmountThreshold`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description still adds material behavior: a flat $0.002 USDC charge per successful call with x402 payment on Base, Solana or Arc, and the fact that failed calls are not charged. It also flags the base-unit constraint ('decimals are not looked up'), which is a real operational gotcha not implied by the annotations.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by return fields, the quote-only caveat, unit semantics, sibling pointers, and pricing in a logical order. It runs somewhat long and the two 'related tools' clauses could be trimmed, but every sentence carries information rather than filler.

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?

Output schema exists, schema coverage is complete, and annotations cover the open-world/read-only profile, so the description only needs to add the non-structural facts — and it does: units, no transaction, and the per-call payment model. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters including the lamports example and the 1–1000 bps slippage range. The description reinforces that amounts are in the token's smallest unit and spells out the exact-input framing, but adds no new mechanics beyond what the schema states, 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?

States a specific verb and resource — a Jupiter aggregator quote on Solana for an exact-input swap — and enumerates the returned fields (price impact, USD value, slippage, AMM route legs with venue labels). An agent knows immediately this is a read-only pricing lookup on Solana, not a swap execution.

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?

'Quote only, no transaction' establishes that this tool stops at pricing, which implicitly scopes its use. However, the listed 'related tools' are framed as being for 'a different need' (mint audit, validator snapshot) rather than as genuine alternatives, so the description never tells the agent when to pick this over crypto_1inch_pathfinder_quotes or crypto_sushiswap_route_quotes, which are the actual competing quote tools in the sibling list.

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

All SiteCheck Crypto & Finance 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?