Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Fivebar Trading

by io.github.fivebar-xyz
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Dry-run a Solana transaction

simulate
Read-only

Run a Solana transaction against mainnet's current state without sending it, before anyone signs: whether it would succeed, every instruction by name (decoded with each program's IDL), compute used and the limit to set, and what it would change in each writable account: SOL before and after, accounts created or closed, an owner change, and every decoded field that changes (a pool's reserves, a position's liquidity, a token account's balance), decoded with the owner's IDL like account_decode. A transaction that would fail is explained like tx_explain, with fixes. Pass the serialized transaction, base64 (as wallets and SDKs produce it) or base58, signed or unsigned; an old blockhash is fine. Use for 'will this work?', 'what will this transaction do?', 'what does this unsigned transaction change?'. Read-only: nothing is sent.

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": {
      "transaction": "<transaction>"
    },
    "name": "simulate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
transactionYesThe serialized transaction, base64 or base58

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, it states that nothing is sent, that signing is not required, and that an old blockhash is acceptable, which are exactly the constraints an agent needs before calling a dry-run. It also discloses the shape of the result (success/failure, compute used and limit, per-account SOL deltas, creations, closes, owner changes, decoded field changes) so behavior is predictable.

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 the read-only guarantee are front-loaded, and the long explanatory clause list is justified by the number of behaviors being disclosed. It is a dense run-on paragraph with minor redundancy around IDL-based decoding repeated twice, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly — outcome, decoded instructions, compute estimates, state diffs, and failure explanations with fixes. For a one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and declared annotations, nothing an agent needs is 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 the schema already defines the single transaction parameter, and the baseline would be 3. The description adds real meaning on top: base64 is what wallets and SDKs produce, base58 also works, and the payload may be signed or unsigned — details the schema does not convey.

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 names a specific verb and resource: simulate a Solana transaction against mainnet state without sending or signing it. It also differentiates itself from siblings by noting the failure explanation behaves like tx_explain and the account decoding behaves like account_decode, so an agent can tell it apart without opening another schema.

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?

It gives clear trigger phrases ('will this work?', 'what will this transaction do?', 'what does this unsigned transaction change?') and a timing condition (before anyone signs), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not state explicit exclusions or route the agent to a named alternative for cases like already-sent transactions, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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

All Fivebar Trading toolsInspect
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