Crypto Bot Audit + Market Data (x402 paid)

Jupiter token search

market_jup_token_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Solana tokens matching a name or symbol query, with market cap, FDV, liquidity, holder count, price-change and volume statistics and Jupiter's own audit flags. Costs $0.001 USDC per call. Byte-identical to GET /market/jup-token-search?query=bonk&limit=20.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	tokens to return (max 20) (default 8)
`query`	Yes	token name, symbol or mint prefix to search for [required]

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ts`	No
`note`	No
`rows`	No
`count`	No
`found`	No
`query`	No
`stale`	No
`caveat`	No
`reason`	No
`source`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 25, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "caveat": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "count": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "found": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "query": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reason": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "rows": {
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "source": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "stale": {
+      "type": [
+        "boolean",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "ts": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedSep 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the per-call cost of $0.001 USDC and the inclusion of Jupiter's audit flags, which are not inferred from annotations. It also confirms the operation is a search, consistent with annotations. No contradiction.

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 sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core function, then adds cost and endpoint reference. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 an output schema present, return values are covered. The description adds the critical cost factor and confirms the data scope. It does not mention pagination or edge cases, but for a read-only search tool with full schema coverage, this is adequate. The only minor gap is no mention of rate limits or error behavior, but that is not essential given the output schema.

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%, with both query and limit fully described in the input schema. The description does not add any details beyond the schema, such as query format nuances or limit behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns Solana tokens matching a name or symbol query, with market statistics and Jupiter audit flags. It uses specific verbs and a resource, making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_tokens, though the Jupiter-specific scope is clear enough.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions the cost and the endpoint, but does not state when to prefer this over other search or market tools. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided, leaving selection to inference.

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

All Crypto Bot Audit + Market Data (x402 paid) tools Inspect

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

Need Help?