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, covering the safety profile. The description adds no new behavioral traits such as auth requirements or side effects; it only elaborates on the return payload. This is useful context but not additional behavioral disclosure beyond 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb 'Return' and immediately enumerates the three output components. No filler or repeated annotation content.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description succinctly enumerates all three output components, giving an agent a clear picture of the response. Minor ambiguity remains about units or types (e.g., whether the success fee is a percentage or a numeric amount), but for a simple no-arg read tool this is adequate.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema is empty and the baseline is 4; there is no parameter meaning for the description to clarify. The description's mention of the return fields does not conflict with the 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Return' and names the exact resource: the disclosed success fee, atomic on-chain referral split, and fee-collection configuration status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_methodology or get_supported_chains, which target different data. It is not a tautology of the title.

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 does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. However, the content itself implies the use case: queries about Recover SOL Rent pricing details. Without explicit exclusions or alternatives, it sits at the implied-usage level.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's burden is lower. It adds useful behavioral context by emphasizing that only a single network is supported and that the response includes an execution boundary. The term 'execution boundary' remains undefined, preventing a higher score.

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 filler or repetition. It front-loads the key fact (return the single supported network) and then adds the secondary detail about the execution boundary. Every word 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?

With no output schema, the description must explain what the caller receives. It identifies two elements — the recovery network and its execution boundary — but 'execution boundary' is left unexplained, leaving the output shape ambiguous. For a simple zero-parameter getter, this is adequate but not fully 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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the parameter-semantics baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the return value rather than inputs, and there is no parameter documentation gap to compensate for.

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 clear verb ('Return') and identifies a specific resource: 'the single supported recovery network and its execution boundary.' It adds precision beyond the title by noting there is exactly one supported network. However, 'execution boundary' is vague and could benefit from elaboration.

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 the tool is for retrieving network information, and sibling names like get_methodology and get_pricing suggest different concerns. Yet it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, conditions, or alternatives. The intended usage is inferable but not fully 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 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.