SiteCheck

Solana Quote

solana_quote

Read-only

Best Jupiter swap route for a Solana token pair and an amount: input and output in token units, the minimum received after slippage, price impact, effective price, each route hop and USD values. from and to take a mint address or a symbol such as SOL or USDC; a symbol resolves to the verified token with the highest organic score, and the chosen mint is named. Quote only: nothing is built, signed or sent. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Mint address or symbol to buy, e.g. USDC
`from`	Yes	Mint address or symbol to sell, e.g. SOL
`amount`	Yes	Amount of from in whole tokens, e.g. 1 or 0.25
`slippageBps`	No	Slippage tolerance in basis points, 0 to 1000 (default 50)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	No
`notes`	No
`route`	No
`output`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`quoteOnly`	No
`disclaimer`	No
`slippageBps`	No
`effectivePrice`	No
`priceImpactPct`	No
`symbolResolution`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 14, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "checkedAt": {},
+    "disclaimer": {},
+    "effectivePrice": {},
+    "input": {},
+    "notes": {},
+    "output": {},
+    "priceImpactPct": {},
+    "quoteOnly": {},
+    "route": {},
+    "slippageBps": {},
+    "source": {},
+    "symbolResolution": {}
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedOct 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, the description discloses that nothing is built, signed or sent, that the call costs $0.002 in USDC per successful call via x402 (Base, Solana or Arc), and that failed calls are not charged — rich operational context an agent could not infer from annotations. It also explains runtime behavior: symbols resolve to the verified token with the highest organic score and the chosen mint is named, which is important disambiguation behavior.

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 purpose and output fields come first, followed by parameter behavior and then the pricing caveat — a sensible front-loaded order. The single paragraph is dense but every sentence carries distinct information; it is slightly long but not padded.

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?

With an output schema present the description need not explain return values, yet it summarizes them helpfully, and it covers cost, safety (quote-only), and parameter resolution. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly appears to be missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: 'from and to take a mint address or a symbol such as SOL or USDC', the tie-break rule for symbol resolution, and that input/output are in token units. This clarifies ambiguous string parameters beyond the brief schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Best Jupiter swap route for a Solana token pair and an amount') and enumerates the output content, so an agent immediately knows this is a DEX swap-quoting tool. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like solana_token, solana_wallet, or solana_tx without opening any 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Quote only: nothing is built, signed or sent' tells the agent this is a read-only preview step, but the text never explains when to choose this over alternatives (e.g. markets_quote or a future swap/buy tool), nor does it state prerequisites like needing the quote before executing. It is adequate but leaves routing decisions to inference.

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

All SiteCheck 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.