Analyze Solana Transaction
solana_transaction_analysisRead-onlyIdempotent
Explain a confirmed Solana transaction and classify failures. Costs $0.004.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signature | Yes |
Utilia Solana Transaction Evidence
by ink.utilia
TDQS
B3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds cost information ($0.004) beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint). No contradiction, but lacks disclosure on rate limits or output details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with clear purpose and cost, but missing parameter context; overall efficient.
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?
No output schema and description does not specify return format; for a tool with one parameter, behavior is under-specified.
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?
Single parameter 'signature' has no description in schema and the tool description does not explain what it is or how to obtain it; 0% schema coverage not compensated.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool explains a confirmed Solana transaction and classifies failures, differentiating it from sibling tools like solana_token_analysis.
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 vs alternatives (e.g., solana_transaction_simulate), nor prerequisites like transaction confirmation.
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.