solanaBalancesReturn the user's Solana wallet holdings: native SOL plus all SPL tokens with mint address, symbol, balance, decimals, and USD value where pricing is available. Native SOL and Wrapped SOL (WSOL) are separate balances and must not be added together when selecting an asset to send.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, setting a safe read-only expectation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the WSOL/SOL separation warning and the caveat that USD value is provided 'where pricing is available.' This informs safe usage but doesn't include broader details like rate limits or default sort order.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded, with the primary purpose stated first and a crucial usage caveat second. Both sentences add unique value—no filler or repetition of annotation/schema information. It is an model of concise, structured documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It enumerates the returned fields (mint, symbol, balance, decimals, USD value) and highlights an important quirk (WSOL separation) that users must know. There are no unanswered questions about usage or return content.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty with zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids explaining parameters that don't exist and focuses on the output structure instead. No additional parameter semantics are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Return the user's Solana wallet holdings' with specific details about what is included (native SOL, SPL tokens) and the data fields (mint address, symbol, balance, decimals, USD value). This distinguishes it from other chain-specific balance tools like ethGetBalances or bscGetBalances, and from price-focused tools like solanaGetTokenPrices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when a user's Solana wallet holdings are needed) by specifying the asset chain and content. It also provides a critical usage warning: 'Native SOL and Wrapped SOL (WSOL) are separate balances and must not be added together when selecting an asset to send.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it falls 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With 113 tools spanning many chains and asset classes, there is substantial overlap. For example, listPositions and getAllPositions appear to serve the same function, and there are many balance, token discovery, and collection data tools that differ mostly by chain or protocol, making misselection likely.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: most tools use camelCase with a verb (baseGetBalances, ethSwapQuote), but some use underscores (nansen_defi_portfolio), others are just bare nouns (wallet, rugcheck), and there are irregularities like solanaBalances instead of solanaGetBalances, plus hederaTokensSwapQuote vs. baseSwapQuote.
The server exposes 113 tools, far beyond the typical well-scoped set. This is an extreme mismatch with the apparent purpose of a wallet/swap server, making discovery and selection difficult for agents.
While the server offers extensive read-only data (balances, market data, NFTs, positions), it lacks core write operations: there is no actual swap execution or token transfer tool, and the referenced emblemCreateVault tool is missing. These are significant gaps that will prevent agents from completing common wallet actions.