sui-mcp-server

swap_quote

Simulate a token swap to estimate the output amount and gas cost before executing on Sui.

Instructions

Get a swap quote by simulating a Move call. Returns estimated output amount and gas cost without executing.

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": {
      "fromCoin": "<fromCoin>",
      "toCoin": "<toCoin>",
      "amount": "<amount>",
      "poolId": "<poolId>"
    },
    "name": "swap_quote"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fromCoin`	Yes	Source coin type or shorthand (SUI, USDC, etc.)
`toCoin`	Yes	Destination coin type or shorthand
`amount`	Yes	Amount to swap (in token units, not MIST)
`poolId`	Yes	Pool object ID to use for the swap

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.3May 28, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: simulation, no execution, returns estimated output and gas cost. It is transparent about its non-destructive nature, but lacks details on idempotency or access requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's function and output. It could mention constraints like pool validity or minimum amounts, but overall provides sufficient context for an agent.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds no further semantic context beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Get a swap quote by simulating a Move call.' It explicitly mentions it returns estimated output and gas cost without executing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'move_call' (executes) and 'cetus_get_pool' (returns pool info, not a quote).

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 description implies the tool is for obtaining a simulated quote before executing a swap, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'cetus_get_pool' or provide conditions for use or non-use. Usage guidance is minimal.

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

Deploy Server