Analyze Solana Token
solana_token_analysisRead-onlyIdempotent
Analyze a Solana mint and holder risks. Costs $0.006.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes |
Utilia Solana Transaction Evidence
by ink.utilia
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds the cost of $0.006, which is a key behavioral trait not covered by annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) but lacks structure. While it fronts the key action and cost, it could be expanded with minimal additional context without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and annotations provide safety/hint info, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the analysis returns or what 'holder risks' entails, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'mint' has no description in schema (0% coverage). The description does not explain what a mint address looks like, how to format it, or what data is required, leaving the agent guessing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Analyze' and resource 'Solana mint and holder risks', distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on transactions, fees, or audio.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like solana_transaction_analysis or solana_priority_fees. Context signals mention sibling tools but description lacks usage criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
The Solana tools are distinct among themselves, but the inclusion of normalize_audio and pdf_to_markdown creates domain confusion. An agent cannot easily determine when to use these media tools in a server named after Solana transaction evidence.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming conventions are mixed: normalize_audio uses verb_noun, pdf_to_markdown uses a different pattern, and Solana tools use a prefix but mix noun and verb forms. No consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
Tool Count3/5
With 6 tools, the count is reasonable for a server, but the scope is mismatched—two tools are unrelated to Solana transactions, making the set feel poorly scoped for the server's stated purpose.
Completeness3/5
The Solana tools cover priority fees, token analysis, transaction analysis, and simulation, which are useful for transaction evidence, but missing operations like transaction broadcast or account details. The unrelated audio and PDF tools add noise rather than completeness.