Get a native RiftBeam quote for any pump.fun AMM (pAMMBay6) token. Picks best price across 4000+ indexed pump pools (native pAMMBay6 IX or Jupiter fallback). Returns outAmount, source, priceImpact. SOL→token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | Pump.fun token mint address (base58) | |
| amountSol | No | SOL to spend (default 0.01) | |
| slippageBps | No | Max slippage 1-1000 bps, default 100 |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: routing across 4000+ pools, Jupiter fallback, return fields (outAmount, source, priceImpact), and SOL→token direction. This goes beyond the safety profile already captured.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: the first states the resource and scope, the second explains routing and returns.
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 read-only quote tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, routing, return fields, direction of swap, and clearly implies no execution side effects. An agent can invoke this tool correctly with the given information.
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?
Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds minor semantic value by specifying SOL→token direction and the amountSol context, but does not significantly augment the schema's parameter documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'a native RiftBeam quote for any pump.fun AMM (pAMMBay6) token.' It distinguishes from sibling quote tools by narrowing scope to pump.fun tokens and mentioning best-price routing across 4000+ pools.
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?
The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when a quote is needed for pump.fun AMM tokens, with routing details and fallback. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., sol_swap_quote) or state when not to use, so it stops short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
