recoversolrent.scan_solanaRead public Solana account state and identify empty token accounts, possible dust balances, possible NFTs, and current rent held by each account. This never creates or signs a transaction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallet | Yes | A base58 Solana public wallet address. |
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.
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.