solana-mcp-server

Simulate SOL transfer

simulate_transfer

Read-only

Dry-run a SOL transfer to check success, program logs, compute units, and network fee without signing or broadcasting.

Instructions

Simulates a native SOL transfer without signing or sending it. Returns whether it would succeed, program logs, compute units and the network fee.

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": {
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>",
      "amountSol": "<amountSol>"
    },
    "name": "simulate_transfer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Recipient address
`from`	Yes	Sender address (fee payer)
`amountSol`	Yes	Amount in SOL, e.g. "0.25" (max 9 decimals)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description goes beyond them by confirming no signing or broadcasting occurs and by enumerating what comes back: success prediction, program logs, compute units, and network fee. For a simulation tool where an agent must trust that nothing is submitted on-chain, that is exactly the context needed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the non-mutating guarantee and followed by the return contents. Every clause carries information an agent needs; there is no restatement of the tool name or filler.

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 properly compensates by listing the four result fields, and all three parameters are fully covered by the schema. It is essentially complete; only minor details such as the source of the simulation (RPC/cluster) or failure-mode behavior are 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 three parameters (from, to, amountSol) are already documented in the schema, including the fee-payer role of 'from' and the 9-decimal constraint on amountSol. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (simulates) and resource (native SOL transfer), plus the essential scope qualifier that nothing is signed or sent. That immediately separates it from the read-only getter siblings such as get_balance and get_transaction, which inspect real state rather than modeling a hypothetical transfer.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

"Without signing or sending it" makes the intended use — a pre-flight dry run — clear without needing the agent to infer it, and "Returns whether it would succeed" confirms the use case. It does not explicitly name an alternative (e.g., a real send/transfer tool) or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server