Submit a signed transaction to the network. Returns transaction signature.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transaction | Yes | Base64-encoded signed transaction |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | base58 transaction signature |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations were provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that submission modifies state (destructive), potential fees, error cases, or confirmation behavior. Only the basic action and return type are given.
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 sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient but could include more context without being verbose.
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?
The tool has only one parameter, which is well-documented in the schema, and an output schema is indicated. However, for a mutation tool, the description lacks crucial details about side effects, success/failure conditions, and network interaction, making it only partially complete.
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 description coverage is 100% and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the 'transaction' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Submit' and the resource 'a signed transaction to the network', with the output 'Returns transaction signature'. This distinguishes it from siblings like solana_buildTransfer (build transaction) and solana_getTransaction (query).
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as prerequisites (e.g., transaction must be built and signed first) 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tool pairs overlap in function: aex402_quote vs aex402_buildSwap, search vs search_tokens vs discover_programs, describe_program vs reconstruct_abi, and mcp_linq vs agent_delegate. Descriptions attempt to differentiate, but boundaries are fuzzy and an agent could easily select the wrong one when uncertain.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use camelCase (aex402_buildSwap) while most use snake_case, verbs vary widely (build, get, list, quote, search, describe, discover, launch, delegate, chat), and there is no uniform verb_noun pattern. This makes predicting tool names difficult.
32 tools is excessive for a single MCP server, exceeding the 25+ threshold. While the scope is broad (AMM, bridge, AI, RPC, discovery, launchpad), many tools could be consolidated (e.g., search tools) or are too fine-grained (multiple solana_get* tools).
Core workflows are well covered: AMM (quote/build/get/list), bridge (quote/status), AI (chat/delegate/linq), Solana and EVM RPCs, search/discovery plus health check, launchpad, and payment help. Minor gaps include no direct bridge history or AMM execution, but these are intentional in a non-custodial design.
