recoversolrent.get_pricingReturn the disclosed success fee, referral discount, atomic on-chain revenue split, and whether fee collection is configured.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context about the returned fields, including a state flag for fee collection, but does not elaborate on formats, units, or other behavioral details.
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, front-loaded sentence that lists the exact content returned with no redundant words. Every element earns its place and the structure is easy to parse.
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 does the job of explaining the return content by naming all four relevant items. It lacks specifics like units or value types, but for a zero-parameter read-only endpoint this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it 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, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There are no parameter details to clarify, and the description appropriately focuses on the return payload.
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 resource (pricing) along with four precise components: success fee, referral discount, atomic on-chain revenue split, and fee collection configuration. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools focused on methodology, supported chains, or scanning.
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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives or conditions for choosing this tool over scan_reserves or scan_solana. The usage is only implied by the tool name and the nature of the returned data.
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.
Each tool has a clear, separate purpose: methodology, pricing, supported chains, and account scanning. Although several are informational, their subjects are distinct enough that an agent should not confuse them.
All tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern, with three get_* information tools and one scan_* action tool. The shared recoversolrent prefix reinforces a clean, predictable naming scheme.
Four tools is a well-scoped set for a focused read-only Solana information and scanning server. Each tool earns its place, and there is no redundant overlap.
The server covers methodology, pricing, chain support, and scanning well, but it provides no tool to actually recover or cleanup the found rent-bearing accounts. Agents can identify potential recoverable value but cannot complete the cleanup workflow, leaving a notable gap.