Skip to main content
Glama

CIPHER x402 — Paid Solana & Crypto Tools

by io.github.cryptomotifs

jito_tip_calculator

Compute an expected-value-maximizing Jito tip for a Solana arbitrage bundle. Inputs: pool_depth (USD), expected_profit (USD), slot_probability [0..1]. Returns tip lamports + EV breakdown. Priced at $0.01 USDC on Base (x402). Pass a signed x402 v2 authorization as the '_payment' argument to unlock the paid response. Without it, the tool returns the 402 accept-list for your wallet to sign.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_paymentNoOptional. Signed x402 v2 X-PAYMENT header value (base64-encoded EIP-3009 authorization). If present, forwarded upstream; if absent, tool returns the 402 accept-list.
slot_probYesProbability the leader slot is a Jito validator [0..1].
pool_depthYesTarget pool depth in USD.
expected_profitYesGross expected profit of the bundle in USD.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully explains the behavior: the tool is paywalled ($0.01 USDC), and without a valid '_payment' it returns a 402 accept-list. This is a key behavioral trait disclosed. However, it does not mention side effects or state changes (though likely none).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise: four sentences, each providing essential information. It front-loads the main purpose and then details inputs, outputs, and payment. No redundant or vague statements.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool has no output schema, but the description states 'Returns tip lamports + EV breakdown', which is sufficient for an agent. The payment flow is thoroughly explained. Some detail on the format of the EV breakdown could be added, but overall it's complete enough.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning: it clarifies units (USD for pool_depth and expected_profit), the range for slot_prob [0..1], and the behavior of the optional '_payment' parameter (unlocks paid response). This goes far beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Compute an expected-value-maximizing Jito tip for a Solana arbitrage bundle.' It specifies the verb 'compute', the resource 'Jito tip', and the domain 'Solana arbitrage bundle'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are unrelated.

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 explicitly lists inputs (pool_depth, expected_profit, slot_probability) with units and range, and explains the payment mechanism (x402 authorization). It does not compare to alternatives, but the specialized nature makes use clear. No explicit exclusions are given, but context is sufficient.

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

All CIPHER x402 — Paid Solana & Crypto Tools toolsInspect
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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with detailed descriptions, and there is no functional overlap between any tools, even those in similar domains like geocoding (forward vs reverse) or Solana wallet analysis (general scan vs specific protocol exposure).

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some use verb_noun (check_drift_exposure), others use data source prefix (coinalyze_funding_rates, openfda_adverse_events), and a few use domain prefix (solana_wallet_scan). This mixture of conventions makes it hard to predict naming for similar functions.

Tool Count2/5

The server claims to be for Solana & Crypto but only 6 of 15 tools are crypto-related, while the rest cover unrelated domains like medical, nutrition, and geocoding. This dilutes focus and suggests the tool count is mismatched for the stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

For a server named 'Paid Solana & Crypto Tools', the crypto toolset is incomplete, missing common operations like token swaps, DeFi protocol interactions, or NFT queries. The inclusion of many non-crypto tools does not fill these gaps.

Resources