Verifiable on-chain facts about a Solana token mint: whether the mint and freeze authorities are still set, total supply, decimals, token program, and how much of the supply the largest token accounts hold, plus public market metrics from a token index. Facts only: no verdict and no recommendation. Largest accounts can be liquidity pools or exchanges, not individual holders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | Token mint address. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-data profile are covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it's explicitly 'facts only' with no verdict/recommendation, and it warns that largest accounts may be pools or exchanges rather than individuals – a non-obvious interpretation caveat that changes how an agent should read the output.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, then the 'facts only' scope statement, then the largest-account caveat. No filler and every clause carries information.
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 single-param read-only lookup with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete: it enumerates returned fields, sets the non-advisory scope, and pre-empts a common misinterpretation. It doesn't mention source freshness or rate limits, but with no output schema and full annotation coverage the gaps are minor.
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 100% and there is only one parameter (mint) fully documented in the schema. The description names the subject (a Solana token mint) but adds no format, constraint, or interpretation detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Verifiable on-chain facts about a Solana token mint') and enumerates exactly what it returns: authority status, supply, decimals, token program, largest-account concentration, and market metrics. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like solana_token_price (price only) and solana_token_search (discovery).
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 usage context is implied by the description ('facts only, no verdict or recommendation'), which tells the agent this is a data-gathering tool, not an evaluator. But it never explicitly says when to use this vs solana_token_price or solana_token_search, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites stated.
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.