Solana Cleanup

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by specifying exactly what the caller receives, including canonical documentation links, and does not contradict the annotations.

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?

One tightly written sentence that front-loads the operation and enumerates the exact return content without filler, repetition, or extraneous detail.

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 parameterless, read-only metadata lookup, the description plus annotations cover everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool. The absence of an output schema is mitigated because the description enumerates the high-level return items.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. A no-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Return', and names three concrete outputs: product safety boundary, exact-versus-estimate policy, and canonical documentation links. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pricing and get_supported_chains.

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 context is implied: use this tool when you need recovery methodology or policy details. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings, nor does it name alternative tools or exclusion conditions.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral value by specifying exactly what information is returned and emphasizing 'disclosed' rates plus whether fee collection is configured, which helps the agent understand the tool's scope.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. The verb 'Return' is front-loaded, and the list of specific fields conveys maximum information with minimal 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?

Given the tool has zero parameters, a simple read-only operation, and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It enumerates the exact data points the agent can expect, which compensates for the absent output schema.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline for param semantics is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed because the schema is empty and the tool takes no inputs.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names a precise resource ('pricing') plus a concrete list of returned fields (success-fee, referral discount, revenue split, payout threshold, fee collection configured). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_methodology, get_supported_chains, and the scan_* tools.

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 this is the tool to call when pricing or fee configuration is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the siblings, nor does it provide exclusion conditions. Sibling names give context, but the guidance is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds context by mentioning 'live and researched' mechanisms and their readiness, confidence, and sources. It does not clarify what 'supported' means or how current 'live' data actually is, but it does add some behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the action 'List' and no filler. It is efficient, though the mismatch between 'chains' in the title and 'mechanisms' in the description creates some avoidable ambiguity.

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, read-only, non-destructive list tool, the description names the main output areas and the annotations cover the operational profile. It could be more complete by explicitly referencing 'supported recovery chains' and explaining the meaning of readiness/confidence, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is complete, so there are no parameter semantics that the description needs to explain. This is the appropriate baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'crypto reserve-recovery mechanisms' plus their attributes: readiness, confidence, and official protocol sources. It is reasonably distinguishable from sibling scanning tools, though it says 'mechanisms' where the title says 'chains,' which adds slight ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_methodology, get_pricing, scan_reserves, or scan_solana. An agent must infer the intended use from the name and title alone.

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?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing that NEAR and Sui results are estimates, and that it reads public chain state. This is useful behavioral context not present in the structured fields.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the NEAR-specific requirement, then the read-only and estimate caveats. Every sentence 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?

The description covers the core operation, supported chains, the conditional contract parameter, and an important output-estimate caveat. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not expand on what an 'eligible reserve-release candidate' looks like or how results are structured, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 67%: chain has an enum, address has a clear description, and contract has a description. The description mainly restates the contract requirement already present in the schema ('Required only for NEAR'), so it adds limited semantic value beyond what the input 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?

The description names a specific action (read public chain state) and a specific outcome (return eligible reserve-release candidates), and lists the exact chains covered. This clearly differentiates it from sibling recoversolrent.scan_solana, which presumably handles Solana while this tool does not.

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 clearly signals when to use it: for Algorand, Stellar, XRP Ledger, NEAR, or Sui. It also highlights the NEAR-specific contract requirement. It does not explicitly say 'use scan_solana for Solana' or list exclusions, but the chain list makes the intended usage context reasonably clear.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false. The description adds the explicit safety guarantee that the tool never creates or signs a transaction, which is valuable for an agent deciding to invoke a recovery-related tool. It also lists the categories of findings it produces, adding context beyond the annotations.

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 with no filler. The main action and outputs are front-loaded, and the non-transactional caveat is stated separately and clearly.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It lists the types of accounts and conditions it identifies, which partially compensates for the absent output schema. Minor gaps include no mention of response format or rate limits, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 already documents the single 'wallet' parameter with 100% coverage, including its base58 format. The description does not add meaning about the parameter beyond saying it reads public account state, which is a general statement rather than parameter-specific guidance. 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('public Solana account state'), and enumerates concrete outputs (empty token accounts, dust balances, NFTs, rent). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like scan_reserves and the meta tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool—whenever you need to read Solana account state and identify token account conditions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the Solana-specific scope and the tool name make the intended use obvious.

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