SoFinance

quote_add_liquidity

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a quote for adding liquidity to a position. Estimates swap routes (Jupiter), price impact, output amounts, and immediate resale gap. Verifies NFT ownership, pool state, and balance. Read-only. Quotes expire quickly (configured TTL). Failure modes: insufficient balance, high price impact (>5%), resale floor breach, quote expiration, pool state changes.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "wallet": "<wallet>",
      "positionMint": "<positionMint>",
      "inputMint": "<inputMint>",
      "inputKind": "<inputKind>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "quote_add_liquidity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amount`	Yes	Amount in token units (e.g. '1.5' for 1.5 SOL)
`wallet`	Yes	Wallet public key
`inputKind`	Yes	Asset kind: 'native' for SOL, 'token' for SPL tokens
`inputMint`	Yes	Input asset mint address (from list_positions assets)
`positionMint`	Yes	Position NFT mint address (from list_positions)
`resaleFloorBps`	No	Minimum resale ratio in basis points (9500-10000, default 9900 = 1% max loss). Conservative immediate-resale protection.
`slippageToleranceBps`	No	Add-liquidity price tolerance in basis points (0-500, multiple of 10, default 100 = 1%). Liquidity is sized so the pool price may drift this much before execution; the unused reserve stays in the wallet. Jupiter swap slippage stays fixed at 0.5%.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds meaningful behavior: it verifies NFT ownership, pool state, and balance on the caller's behalf, and it discloses a TTL-based expiration model plus a concrete list of failure modes with thresholds. The main missing piece is whether a quote handle is returned for later execution and what the TTL length actually is.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then capability, then safety, then failure modes in a compact sequence. The final failure-mode list is slightly clipped in style ('resale floor breach, quote expiration, pool state changes') but every sentence carries information an agent can act on.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing the returned estimate fields and the conditions under which the call fails, which is the essential information for a quoting tool. Gaps are minor: the actual TTL value and whether the quote carries an identifier needed by a downstream prepare step are left unstated.

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 all seven parameters (including the resaleFloorBps and slippageToleranceBps semantics) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces a couple of these concepts through 'immediate resale gap' and 'resale floor breach' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a quote for adding liquidity to a position') and enumerates what the quote contains (swap routes, price impact, output amounts, resale gap). It implicitly separates itself from the sibling prepare_*/submit_* tools by saying the operation is read-only and that quotes expire, though it never names an alternative outright.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'Read-only' and 'quotes expire quickly' lines imply this is the pre-flight step before a prepare/submit tool, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or 'do not use this for X' statement. Failure-mode conditions (insufficient balance, >5% price impact, resale floor breach) give the agent useful gating context but are not framed as routing guidance.

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

All SoFinance tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?