solana-wallet-intel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the key trait: it is free and does not spend USDC. For a no-parameter health check, this covers the main side-effect and cost concerns, though it does not explicitly state that it is read-only.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the cost constraint. No wasted words.

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?

For a zero-parameter health check with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the operation and its cost behavior. It could mention the expected response shape, but the simplicity of a ping makes that a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain.

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 states a specific purpose: a health check. It does not name siblings, but the purpose is clear enough to distinguish it from the wallet- and token-related tools in the sibling list.

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 phrase 'Free health check' implies using it to check service availability without incurring cost. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over other tools or when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the ranking basis, the rug-risk flag conditions, the age/volume fields and the $0.002 USDC cost, which is important for an agent deciding whether to spend. It omits freshness/caching or rate-limit behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 core purpose and the field list are front-loaded in the first sentence, with usage and cost following. It is dense but every clause (fields, risk flags, cost) adds information; slightly list-heavy but not padded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and flag semantics, plus the cost. For a one-optional-parameter read tool, that is close to complete; only refresh cadence and error behavior are unstated.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single optional 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema (1-25, default 15). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Trending Solana tokens right now, ranked by momentum') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It is clearly distinct from the wallet-focused siblings.

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?

Gives a clear usage context ('find tokens with attention before checking a mint's safety or a wallet's trades'), which routes the agent into a discovery-then-verify workflow. It does not name exclusion conditions such as rate limits or when to avoid it, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the pricing behavior: it is free and 'Does not spend USDC', which matters in a paid tool ecosystem. It does not cover rate limits, error cases for invalid or empty wallets, or whether history is cached.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero waste: the payload is front-loaded, the cost guarantee follows, and the alternative and its price come last. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description lists the three returned fields, which is the right thing to do, and it discloses the cost model. It stops short of defining what 'last active time' means or what happens for a wallet with no activity, so it is still usable but slightly incomplete.

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 schema documents the single address parameter at 100% coverage ('Solana wallet address (base58)'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, validation, or chain constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (free Solana wallet teaser) plus exactly which three fields it returns: SOL balance, last active time, 24h transaction count. This clearly separates it from wallet_quick and wallet_profile.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (wallet_quick) and the condition that selects it: PnL, win rate, bot and smart-money flags. It also gives the cost difference, $0.002 versus free, so an agent can choose based on both data needs and price.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses the price ($0.01 USDC), the scoring model (0-100 with A-F grades and explained components), the methodology (cost basis at historical hourly SOL/USD per trade), the filtering (spam/NFT airdrops removed) and the sample sizes (last 50-100 transactions). Gaps remain around error handling, latency/caching and what happens on payment failure, which keeps this from a 5.

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 output inventory is front-loaded in the first sentence and the use case plus pricing follow. The first sentence is long and list-heavy, but nearly every clause names a distinct returned field, so little of it is waste.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns itself, and it does so field by field while flagging the $0.01 cost an agent needs before calling. It lacks guidance on failure modes for an invalid or empty wallet, which is the main remaining hole for a single-parameter paid lookup.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Solana wallet address (base58)'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format, validation or chain caveats about the address, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Solana wallet intel in one call') and enumerates exactly what is returned: top 15 holdings, portfolio value, realized/unrealized PnL, copy-trade score, win rate, cadence and labels. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `wallet_preview` by identifying that one as the free teaser, so an agent can differentiate without opening the schema.

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?

It states a clear purpose ('Use it to vet a wallet before copy-trading it') and points to the cheaper alternative (`/wallet/preview`, free vs $0.01). It stops short of explicitly covering when to prefer `wallet_quick` or `wallet_quick_batch`, leaving the batch/single-token cases to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses cost ($0.002 USDC), the sampling floor (at least 50 txs, paging toward 24h, cap 300), and the degraded-response condition (null rates with windowTooShort=true under an hour of activity). These are exactly the behaviors an agent must anticipate before spending money on the call.

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?

Front-loaded with the value proposition and metrics, and every clause adds real information (cost, edge cases, usage). It is dense and could be split into two sentences for readability, but nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, yet the description lists the returned fields, the cost, the lookback/paging behavior, and the null-rate edge case. That is sufficient for an agent to decide and call correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'address' parameter (base58 Solana wallet), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, which is acceptable at baseline 3 for a fully documented single-param schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource with its differentiator ('Cheapest Solana wallet screen on x402') and enumerates the exact metrics returned. It explicitly positions itself against the heavier sibling /wallet/profile, so an agent can distinguish the fast screen from the full profile without opening a schema.

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?

Names the intended workflow ('filter copy-trade candidates before buying a full /wallet/profile'), which is both a when-to-use and an explicit alternative. The implied when-not-to-use (when you need the full profile) follows directly from the named sibling.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well on the essentials: it discloses the batch cap of 10, the deterministic ordering (ranked by realized PnL), the exact payload fields, and that the call is paid at $0.015 USDC. It stops short of failure semantics — whether the charge still applies if an address is invalid or the call errors, and what happens above 10 addresses.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and front-loaded with the return payload and batch limit before the calling convention and price. Every clause carries information an agent needs (fields, cap, ordering, input format, cost).

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must describe returns and does — it lists the four returned metrics and the sort order. The price and address cap complete the picture for a one-parameter batch call. The remaining gap is error/partial-failure behavior, which matters for a paid batch tool but is a minor omission here.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents format and the 10-address limit. The description restates the comma-separated convention and adds "Solana" as the chain constraint, but contributes no syntax detail beyond the schema, making 3 the correct baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Quick screen ... for up to 10 Solana wallets") and enumerates exactly which metrics come back (realized PnL, win rate, bot flag, smart-money flag) plus the ranking order. An agent can tell this is the batch variant of a screening call without opening the schema. It never names wallet_quick or wallet_profile as the single-wallet alternatives, so the sibling boundary is only inferred from the word "batch".

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: "in one paid call" and "up to 10" signal that this is the bulk/cheap path versus per-wallet tools, and "Pass addresses comma-separated" gives the calling convention. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no exclusion for when fewer than two wallets should go to wallet_quick, and no guidance on partial or invalid addresses.

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