Live Jupiter swap quote for any SPL pair: output amount, price impact, route. The real executable price on Solana, not an index price. Costs $0.005 USDC per call (x402, Solana mainnet).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | amount in raw base units of input mint | |
| input_mint | Yes | input mint (base58) | |
| output_mint | Yes | output mint (base58) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and reveals the per-call cost ($0.005 USDC), the live/executable nature, and the key outputs. It doesn't explicitly state there are no side effects or rate limits, but for a quote tool the cost and live-execution caveat are the most material behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences with no filler: the function, the key differentiator, and the cost. All information is front-loaded and each clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description names the important outputs (amount, price impact, route) and the operational cost. It could add a note about quote freshness or response shape, but nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but it doesn't need to because the schema already carries that burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Live Jupiter swap quote for any SPL pair' naming the exact verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes the tool from an index price, which helps separate it from the many pricing-focused sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly frames the tool as the source for executable DEX swap prices rather than index/market prices, giving an agent a reason to pick it over price-checking siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the context is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools are tightly scoped and cross-referenced, but the set contains overlapping families: liquidation tools (alert/scan/history/stats/leaders/recent/heatmap) and redundant snapshots like get_market_snapshot vs get_trade_context, get_last_liquidation vs get_recent_liquidations, and get_cascade_forecast_free vs get_cascade_forecast. Agents will need to read descriptions carefully to avoid misselection.
All tool names follow a consistent get_<domain>_<detail> snake_case pattern, which makes the API predictable. The only real deviations are the bare 'pricing' tool and the 'free' suffix on taster variants.
At 52 tools, this far exceeds the 3-15 well-scoped range and crosses the 50-tool extreme threshold. The count is inflated by numerous paid/free taster pairs and many overlapping liquidation variants.
The surface covers prices, funding, open interest, orderbooks, liquidations, wallet/token data, Solana network health, DeFi TVL, and stablecoin flows—broad coverage for a crypto data feed. Gaps like historical OHLC/price candles, a machine-readable symbol list, and pagination endpoints are workable around but would round it out.