solana_transaction_simulateSimulate a Solana transaction and classify failures. Costs $0.008.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| encoding | No | base64 | |
| transaction | Yes | ||
| accountAddresses | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds the cost ($0.008) and the classification of failures, providing moderate additional behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with an additional cost note. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description does not explain return values or provide enough context for the three parameters. The tool's complexity is not adequately covered for an agent to use it effectively.
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 documentation coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the parameters (encoding, transaction, accountAddresses). The description fails to compensate for the missing param details.
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 clearly states the tool simulates a Solana transaction and classifies failures, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like solana_transaction_analysis.
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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the cost is mentioned, there is no explanation of when simulation is appropriate or exclusions.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.