Skip to main content
Glama

quote_solana_risk_panel

Free quote for the paid HTTP panel of parallel Solana risk advisors. Pass a Solana mint and optionally comma-separated public advisor aliases from GET /v1/advisors and a CAIP-2 token chain. Returns a canonical HTTP URL and estimated total in USDC; does not call or pay advisors. The URL's HTTP 402 payment quote is authoritative. Request it without a proof, then prepay the exact original URL with a compatible x402 HTTP client. A confirmed prepayment returns 202 with job_id/status_url: poll status_url for free; no second signed request or payment is needed. Failed paid panels require support review; there is no automatic refund.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mintYesBase58 Solana token mint address to analyze through the paid HTTP panel.
chainNoOptional CAIP-2 network ID of the token being analyzed, not the payment network. Defaults to Solana mainnet; other token chains are currently unsupported.
advisorsNoOptional comma-separated public advisor aliases from free GET /v1/advisors; omit to select all enabled advisors compatible with the token chain.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / advisors / description
      Added value: +"Optional comma-separated public advisor aliases from free GET /v1/advisors; omit to select all enabled advisors compatible with the token chain."
    • addedInput schema / properties / chain / description
      Added value: +"Optional CAIP-2 network ID of the token being analyzed, not the payment network. Defaults to Solana mainnet; other token chains are currently unsupported."
    • addedInput schema / properties / mint / description
      Added value: +"Base58 Solana token mint address to analyze through the paid HTTP panel."
  2. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / advisors / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
      -  {
      -    "type": "string"
      -  },
      -  {
      -    "type": "null"
      -  }
      -]
    • addedInput schema / properties / advisors / type
      Added value: +"string"
    • removedInput schema / properties / chain / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
      -  {
      -    "type": "string"
      -  },
      -  {
      -    "type": "null"
      -  }
      -]
    • addedInput schema / properties / chain / type
      Added value: +"string"
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares the tool is free, does not contact or pay advisors, that the URL's HTTP 402 quote is authoritative, that success returns 202 with job_id/status_url, that polling is free with no second signed request, and that failed panels require support review with no automatic refund. These are non-obvious operational traits an agent could not derive from the schema.

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?

Purpose and the 'does not call or pay advisors' caveat are front-loaded, and every sentence carries operational content. The middle section is dense and slightly run-on, packing the payment/polling flow into long clauses, but nothing is padding.

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 and no annotations, yet the description covers the return shape (URL + USDC estimate), the payment handshake, the async job_id/status_url polling path, and failure/refund handling. An agent has enough to invoke this correctly and follow through the paid flow.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the mint, chain, and advisors parameters are already documented. The description largely restates them, adding only the provenance hint that aliases come from GET /v1/advisors; it adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Free quote for the paid HTTP panel of parallel Solana risk advisors') and immediately bounds scope with 'does not call or pay advisors,' which cleanly separates it from sibling check_solana_token_risk. The return value (canonical HTTP URL + estimated USDC total) is named in the same breath.

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?

Gives a concrete usage sequence: request without a proof, then prepay the exact original URL with an x402 client, then poll status_url for free rather than re-requesting. It does not name sibling tools (check_solana_token_risk, get_job_result) as explicit alternatives, so routing is inferred from the described workflow rather than stated.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources