Real cost of exiting a Solana position AT YOUR SIZE — live route, not theoretical slippage. Facts and flags only, never advice. Free tier: 3 calls per hour per IP, shared with the website; unlimited access costs $0.010 per call over x402 at /v1/exit-cost
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | Solana token mint address | |
| size | Yes | Position size in whole tokens — the quote is for YOUR size |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns facts and flags only, never advice, and reveals rate limits (3 calls/hour free) and pricing for unlimited access. It also indicates the methodology (live route) but doesn't explicitly confirm it's read-only or describe error behavior.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds important behavioral facts. It includes pricing and endpoint details, which are useful but could be seen as slightly dense. Still, every sentence serves a purpose, and it's under four sentences.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main functionality, pricing, and usage limits. It doesn't describe the return format or specifics of 'flags', but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, it's reasonably complete for an AI agent to understand what the tool does and when to use it.
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?
The input schema already describes both parameters fairly well (mint address and size in whole tokens). The description adds emphasis on 'AT YOUR SIZE' but doesn't introduce new parameter details, format, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the 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 clearly states the tool's function: calculating the real cost of exiting a Solana position at the user's specific size, using live routing rather than theoretical slippage. It effectively distinguishes itself from potential alternatives by emphasizing 'live route, not theoretical slippage' and is specific about the resource (Solana position).
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 provides context on when to use the tool: for factual real-world exit cost estimates rather than theoretical ones, and explicitly says it provides facts and flags, never advice. It also includes usage restrictions (free tier limits, paid access) but does not name alternative tools or explicit exclusion criteria. Sibling tools offer no guidance, but the purpose gives enough context.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct research area: chain health, exit cost, known issues, specific token launch history, live launch feed, and pool safety. Even the related 'launch' and 'launches' are clearly differentiated by singular vs. feed context.
Names are short but inconsistent: 'exit_cost' uses an underscore while others are single words, and there's no consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., 'known' is an adjective, 'chain' is a noun). This creates minor predictability issues.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a niche research service. Each tool earns its place without overwhelming the surface.
The domain of pre-investment checks is reasonably covered across chains, exits, known pitfalls, pump.fun launches, and pools. Minor gaps exist such as no general token safety check or exit cost for non-Solana chains, but these are workable.