Solana DEX quote via RiftBeam aggregator — automatically picks best price across Raydium CLMM, Orca Whirlpool and Jupiter. Returns source field. 10bps fee. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | sol, usdc or base58 mint | |
| from | Yes | sol, usdc or base58 mint | |
| amount | No | Human amount (sol/usdc only) | |
| amountRaw | No | Base units (any mint) |
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, so the description adds value by disclosing the 10bps fee, the automatic best-price selection across named DEXs, and the source field return. No contradiction with annotations.
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 highly concise, using four short clauses to convey the essential information: what it is, how it works, what it returns, and the fee. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.
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 read-only quote tool, the description covers the core function, aggregation behavior, fee, and output source field. Schema covers params, and annotations cover safety. It doesn't detail the full return structure, but no output schema exists, so this is adequate. The context is complete enough for an AI agent to select and invoke it appropriately.
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 baseline is 3. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (from, to, amount, amountRaw). It does mention 'Human amount' and 'Base units' in the schema, but the description itself adds nothing extra.
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 clearly states it's a Solana DEX quote via RiftBeam aggregator, naming specific DEXs (Raydium CLMM, Orca Whirlpool, Jupiter) and explicitly says it returns a source field. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like swap_quote (generic) and sol_swap (execution).
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 implies it's for getting quotes on Solana via RiftBeam, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. It lacks explicit when/when-not guidance, though the context of 'quote' vs 'swap' is implied by the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
