Get raw account info (owner, lamports, data) for any Solana address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Account address (base58) | |
| encoding | No | Data encoding: base64 (default) or jsonParsed | base64 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | No | account (lamports, owner, data, executable, rentEpoch) or null if it does not exist | |
| context | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only operation ('Get raw account info'), but does not explicitly state side effects, safety, or permissions. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden; it is minimally adequate but lacks depth.
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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the essential verb and resource, making it easy to scan.
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 simplicity of the tool (a basic getter) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but noted), the description covers the necessary context. It identifies the key returned fields and the supported encoding options.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema: it mentions 'raw account info' but does not clarify parameter formats or constraints beyond what 'base58' and 'base64/jsonParsed' already convey.
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 verb 'Get', the resource 'raw account info', and specifies the fields returned (owner, lamports, data). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like solana_getBalance (which only returns balance) and solana_getSignaturesForAddress.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to other Solana query tools.
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.
