Skip to main content
Glama

SODAX Builders MCP

by io.github.gosodax

sodax_get_solver_oracle

Read-only

Get the solver's oracle USD prices per (chain, token). For quoting with sodax_get_solver_quote, filter chainId='146': chainId-146 addresses pass the quote service's compatibility check, while spoke-chain (non-146) addresses are rejected with 'not compatible with the quote service'. Caveat: passing that check (being listed/priced) does NOT guarantee a swap route — canonical bridged *_ASSET hub tokens and major stablecoins route most reliably, while many wrapped/derivative/money-market entries (e.g. WBTC, waLocBTC, SONIC_SODA_ASSET) are priced but frequently return 'No path was found', and routability is pair/amount/liquidity-dependent. Also useful for sanity-checking quote amounts against the USD prices the solver uses.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNoResponse format: 'json' for raw data or 'markdown' for formatted textmarkdown
symbolNoFilter by token symbol (case-insensitive exact match, e.g. 'SODA', 'bnUSD')
chainIdNoFilter results to a single intent-relay chain ID (decimal string, e.g. '146' for Sonic). Call sodax_get_relay_chain_id_map to translate.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses significant behavioral caveats: bridged tokens may be 'priced but frequently return 'No path was found'', and routability depends on pair/amount/liquidity. It also explains the difference between being listed/priced and being routable, which is not implied by annotations.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, then offers targeted usage details and caveats. Each sentence provides essential information—no fluff or repetition. It is compact relative to the wealth of behavioral context it conveys, making it highly scannable.

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 getter with optional filters, the description covers the tool's purpose, the intended use case for quoting, a crucial caveat about routability, and the relationship with sibling tools. There is no output schema, but the data type (USD prices per chain/token) is implicitly clear from the description, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% for all three parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful context for chainId by explaining the '146' filter and its significance for the quote service compatibility check. It also provides an example symbol ('SODA') that reinforces the symbol parameter's semantics, adding value beyond the schema.

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 starts with a clear action: 'Get the solver's oracle USD prices per (chain, token)'. It specifies the resource (solver's oracle USD prices) and scope (per chain/token), which distinguishes it from siblings like sodax_get_solver_quote. The next sentence explicitly differentiates it from quoting use cases, ensuring no confusion.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'For quoting with sodax_get_solver_quote, filter chainId='146'' and explains the compatibility check. It also notes when it is useful for sanity-checking quote amounts. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use, but the alternative tool is named and the context is unambiguous.

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

All SODAX Builders MCP 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping scopes: sodax_get_token_supply, sodax_get_total_supply, and sodax_get_circulating_supply all provide supply data, and the four money_market_* getters could be conflated. However, most tools are distinct and descriptions help.

Naming Consistency3/5

The sodax_* tools follow a consistent get_<resource> pattern, but docs_* tools mix camelCase (getPage, searchDocumentation) with snake_case (list_tools), and there are non-get verbs like refresh and submit. This inconsistency makes the naming pattern less predictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 40 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold for even a comprehensive API. Many endpoints are granular (e.g., separate supply tools) and could be consolidated, making the set feel bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tools cover a wide range of SODAX features: docs, money market, AMM, relay, solver, token data, and user positions. Missing are write operations (except relay_submit) and a few data endpoints like pool details, but for a query-oriented MCP it's largely complete.

Resources