Skip to main content
Glama

get_swap_quote

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a quote for token swaps or cross-chain bridges via LiFi aggregator, showing expected output, fees, and execution time.

Instructions

Get a LiFi aggregator quote for a token swap (same-chain) or bridge (cross-chain). Returns expected output, fees, execution time, and the underlying tool selected. Default is exact-in (amount = fromToken); set amountSide: "to" for exact-out quotes (amount = target toToken output). Source chain is always EVM. Destination can be any EVM chain, Solana, or TRON — pass toChain: "solana" / toChain: "tron" + an explicit toAddress (Solana base58 / TRON T-prefixed base58); the bridge protocol delivers tokens on the destination chain after the EVM source tx confirms (typically 1-15 min). Exact-out is not supported for cross-chain bridges to Solana or TRON. For Solana-source swaps and bridges (the reverse direction) use prepare_solana_lifi_swap. TRON-source LiFi is not yet wired. PROTOCOL ROUTING (issue #411): without exchanges / bridges, LiFi picks the best-output route across all aggregators (Sushi, Uniswap, 1inch, Paraswap, etc.). When the user names a specific DEX ("swap on 1inch"), pass exchanges: ["1inch"] so LiFi only routes via that DEX — without the filter, the prepare receipt would silently use a different protocol. The response's routedVia.tool is the actually-resolved route; surface it to the user before they sign. No transaction is built by this tool.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
walletYes
fromChainYes
toChainYes
fromTokenYes
toTokenYes
toAddressNoDestination wallet. OMIT for same-chain-type swaps (defaults to the source wallet — LiFi behavior). REQUIRED when `toChain` is `"solana"` or `"tron"` because the source EVM hex wallet isn't a valid recipient on those chains. Format must match the destination chain (Solana base58 for `"solana"`, TRON base58 with T-prefix for `"tron"`, EVM hex otherwise).
amountYesHuman-readable decimal amount, NOT raw wei/base units. Example: "1.5" for 1.5 USDC, "0.01" for 0.01 ETH. Interpreted as fromToken input by default; set `amountSide: "to"` to interpret as the toToken output amount (exact-out). The tool resolves decimals on-chain and converts internally.
amountSideNoWhich side of the swap `amount` refers to. "from" (default) = exact-in: you spend exactly `amount` of fromToken and receive a variable output. "to" = exact-out: you receive exactly `amount` of toToken and the input is sized to hit that target. Exact-out uses LiFi's toAmount quote and skips the 1inch comparison (1inch has no exact-out endpoint).
fromTokenDecimalsNoOptional decimals hint for fromToken if on-chain lookup fails (rare). Native is 18.
toTokenDecimalsNoOptional decimals hint for toToken if on-chain lookup fails (rare). Only used when `amountSide: "to"`. Native is 18.
slippageBpsNoSlippage tolerance in basis points (50 = 0.5%, 100 = 1%). Default ~50. Hard-capped at 500 (5%) — anything higher is almost always a sandwich-bait misconfiguration. If a legitimate thin-liquidity route genuinely needs >1%, also pass `acknowledgeHighSlippage: true`.
acknowledgeHighSlippageNoOpt-in flag required when slippageBps > 100 (1%). Forces the caller to state that an unusually-high slippage is intentional — the default rejects the tx to protect the user from MEV sandwich attacks.
exchangesNoRestrict LiFi routing to a specific set of DEX/exchange aggregators. Common values: "1inch", "sushiswap", "uniswap", "paraswap", "0x", "kyberswap", "odos", "openocean". When the user explicitly names a DEX ("swap on 1inch"), pass it here — without a filter, LiFi silently picks the best-output route regardless of what the user asked for. Multiple entries OR'd. If no route exists via the requested exchange(s) the call errors clearly; agent should offer to retry without the filter.
bridgesNoRestrict cross-chain routing to a specific set of bridge protocols. Common values: "across", "stargate", "hop", "cbridge", "amarok", "polygon", "arbitrum-bridge". Mirrors `exchanges` but for bridge selection. Only applies to cross-chain routes; ignored for intra-chain swaps.
excludeExchangesNoBlocklist version of `exchanges` — DEXes/aggregators LiFi must avoid. Use when the user says "not via 1inch" or "avoid Sushiswap". Independent of `exchanges`: pass both to constrain to allowlist minus blocklist. Pass-through to LiFi's `denyExchanges`.
excludeBridgesNoBlocklist version of `bridges` — bridge protocols LiFi must avoid on cross-chain routes. Pass-through to LiFi's `denyBridges`.
orderNoRoute ranking criterion. RECOMMENDED (default) — LiFi's mix of price + safety. CHEAPEST — pick the route with the highest output amount; use this for "best rate available" intent. FASTEST — minimize execution time (relevant for cross-chain bridges where settlement varies). SAFEST — prefer the most-vetted tool set. Pass-through to LiFi's `order`.
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context: no transaction is built, the response includes a routedVia.tool field, bridges to non-EVM chains take 1-15 minutes, and the protocol routing issue (#411) warns that without exchange filters LiFi silently picks the best route. This exceeds the annotation coverage.

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?

The description is fairly long but well-structured, starting with the core purpose and then listing key details in logical order. It includes important warnings and references to issue #411. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'No transaction is built' is implied by readOnlyHint but still useful) but overall efficient for the complexity.

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 17 parameters and cross-chain complexity, the description covers source/destination constraints, exact-in/out, routing control, bridge settlement times, error scenarios, and the protocol routing issue. However, it does not detail the response structure beyond listing a few fields (expected output, fees, execution time, tool, routedVia.tool). With no output schema, a bit more detail on the return format would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is high (71%), and the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the exact-in/exact-out mechanism, the toAddress requirement for Solana/TRON, the meaning of exchanges/bridges/exclude arrays, the order options, and the highSlippage acknowledgement. While the schema already documents many parameters, the description provides higher-level intent and usage patterns.

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 gets a LiFi aggregator quote for token swaps or cross-chain bridges, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like prepare_solana_lifi_swap by explicitly noting the reverse direction. It also clarifies it is read-only and does not build a transaction.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., Solana-source requests should use prepare_solana_lifi_swap) and when not to use it (e.g., exact-out for cross-chain to Solana/TRON is unsupported, TRON-source not wired). It also explains when to set toAddress for non-EVM destinations and how to control routing via exchanges/bridges.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/szhygulin/vaultpilot-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server