Skip to main content
Glama

SODAX Builders MCP

by io.github.gosodax

sodax_get_volume

Read-only

Get solver volume data showing filled intents with filtering and pagination. Requires inputToken and outputToken. Optional filters: chain, solver, block range OR time range (don't mix both).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNoSort order by block numberdesc
toTsNoEnd timestamp (unix seconds). Don't mix with since/until or fromBlock/toBlock.
limitNoMaximum number of filled intents to return (1-100)
sinceNoStart time ISO format (don't mix with fromBlock/toBlock or fromTs/toTs)
untilNoEnd time ISO format (don't mix with fromBlock/toBlock or fromTs/toTs)
cursorNoPagination cursor from previous response's nextCursor
formatNoResponse format: 'json' for raw data or 'markdown' for formatted textmarkdown
fromTsNoStart timestamp (unix seconds). Don't mix with since/until or fromBlock/toBlock.
solverNoFilter by solver address (0x0...0 for default solver)
chainIdNoFilter by chain ID (e.g., 146 for Sonic)
toBlockNoEnd block number (don't mix with since/until)
fromBlockNoStart block number (don't mix with since/until)
inputTokenYesREQUIRED: Input token address
includeDataNoInclude raw intent data in response
outputTokenYesREQUIRED: Output token address

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds usage constraints (required tokens, block/time range exclusivity) and mentions pagination, providing context beyond the safety annotations without contradicting them.

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 two concise sentences with no filler, front-loading the main purpose and immediately following with usage essentials.

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?

With 15 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid high-level overview—purpose, required fields, filter groups, and mutual exclusion. However, it omits details like response format (covered by the format parameter in the schema) and pagination cursor mechanics, which are described in the schema. Overall, the description is sufficient given the rich schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters into required (inputToken, outputToken) and optional filters (chain, solver, block range OR time range) and explicitly restating the 'don't mix' constraint, which aids the agent's selection.

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 identifies the tool as a read-only query for solver volume data, specifying it returns 'filled intents' and supports 'filtering and pagination.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sodax_get_volume_stats and sodax_get_solver_intent.

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?

Provides explicit usage constraints: 'Requires inputToken and outputToken,' identifies optional filters, and warns against mixing block and time ranges ('don't mix both'). However, it doesn't name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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