Solana MCP Server

execute_swap

Swap tokens on Solana using Jupiter DEX aggregator. Provide input and output token mints, amount, and slippage tolerance to execute a trade.

Instructions

Execute a token swap on Jupiter DEX aggregator. Requires PRIVATE_KEY.

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": {
      "input_mint": "<input_mint>",
      "output_mint": "<output_mint>",
      "amount": "<amount>",
      "network": "<network>"
    },
    "name": "execute_swap"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`input_mint`	Yes	Input token mint address (or 'SOL')
`output_mint`	Yes	Output token mint address (or 'SOL')
`amount`	Yes	Amount of input token (UI amount)
`slippage_bps`	No	Slippage tolerance in basis points (default 50 = 0.5%)
`network`	Yes	Network — MUST be specified

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 27, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'requires PRIVATE_KEY', implying a write operation, but does not specify consequences (e.g., token deduction, transaction costs, confirmation time, potential reverts). No information on success/failure outcomes or side effects.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise but lacks critical information. It does not waste words, but the brevity compromises completeness. A longer description with structured sections would be more helpful.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of executing a token swap (a financial transaction on DEX), the description is insufficient. It does not mention return values (e.g., transaction signature), quoting requirements, or network fees. Sibling tools like get_swap_quote exist but are not referenced.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for each parameter, including units and format (e.g., 'amount: UI amount', 'slippage_bps: default 50'). The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Execute a token swap'), the resource ('Jupiter DEX aggregator'), and a critical requirement ('Requires PRIVATE_KEY'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_swap_quote (which only provides quotes) and transfer_sol/transfer_token (which are direct transfers without aggregation).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisite steps like obtaining a quote via get_swap_quote or the need for prior approval. The only hint is the private key requirement, but this lacks explicit context for decision-making.

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