solmachina-x402

solmachina_decision

SolMachina Decision — the decision layer for autonomous agents: composes on-chain risk signals into ONE answer — EXECUTE / REVIEW / REJECT + SMRI (SolMachina Machine Risk Index 0-100) + confidence + full evidence. A transparent RISK GATE against stated thresholds — NOT financial advice, NOT a profit prediction; returns REVIEW/unknown instead of guessing. Requires ?mint=; optional ?action=, ?amountUsd=, and a named firewall ?policy= (conservative|bluechip|anti-rug|degen).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mint`	Yes	Base58 SPL token mint to assess, e.g. DezXAZ8z7PnrnRJjz3wXBoRgixCa6xjnB7YaB1pPB263 (BONK).
`action`	No	Single nonblank context string; default assess. Does not execute an action.
`policy`	No	Named firewall preset: conservative \| bluechip \| anti-rug \| degen — expands to a full ALLOW/DENY policy (the individual params above override preset values). The response echoes policyTemplate.
`minSmri`	No	Agent Financial Firewall — your policy: require SMRI >= this (0-100). Adds policy.verdict = ALLOW/DENY (fail-closed).
`amountUsd`	No	Single finite non-negative decimal USD amount, context only; does not change the score. No exponent notation or repeated values.
`minConfidence`	No	Firewall: DENY if data confidence is below this (0-1).
`denyHighRiskBand`	No	Firewall: DENY if the token-risk band is 'high'.
`denyMintAuthority`	No	Firewall: DENY if the mint authority is still set.
`denyFreezeAuthority`	No	Firewall: DENY if the freeze authority is still set.
`maxConcentrationPct`	No	Firewall: DENY if top-10 holder concentration exceeds this %.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 9, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / policy

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Named firewall preset: conservative | bluechip | anti-rug | degen — expands to a full ALLOW/DENY policy (the individual params above override preset values). The response echoes policyTemplate.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedSep 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well: it discloses the output shape, the honest-failure mode ('returns REVIEW/unknown instead of guessing'), what the tool does NOT do (financial advice/profit prediction), and that action/amountUsd are context-only. This gives an agent accurate expectations for a decision tool. It omits rate limits and auth, but for this tool class the key traits are disclosed.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description front-loads the core purpose well, but it is a dense run-on of em-dash clauses and redundantly restates the required/optional parameters that the schema already documents. The disclaimers are useful but the trailing parameter recap could be cut. Informative yet not tight.

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?

Despite 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description compensates by specifying the output format (EXECUTE/REVIEW/REJECT + SMRI + confidence + evidence) and the decision philosophy. The schema covers all parameters richly, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation. Minor gaps remain on threshold semantics, but overall this is largely complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema descriptions are already rich (firewall fail-closed behavior, context-only flags). The description repeats 'Requires ?mint=...; optional ?action= and ?amountUsd=' which adds nothing beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline but no credit for extra semantic value.

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: it 'composes on-chain risk signals into ONE answer' (EXECUTE/REVIEW/REJECT + SMRI + confidence + evidence). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like solmachina_smri (raw index) and solmachina_token_risk (raw signals) by framing itself as the synthesis/decision layer, not a data-returning tool. This is a specific, differentiated purpose.

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?

The description gives clear context: it is 'the decision layer for autonomous agents' and 'a transparent RISK GATE against stated thresholds,' with an explicit 'NOT financial advice, NOT a profit prediction' exclusion. However, it never names any of the 25 siblings as alternatives or states when to prefer solmachina_smri or solmachina_token_risk over this tool, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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

All solmachina-x402 tools Inspect

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.

Resources

Need Help?