Autosophia Solana Lens

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It gives no details on what the tool returns, whether it has side effects, or how 'connection status' is represented. It is essentially a label without behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It is a fragment that fails to provide a complete sentence or clear meaning, so it does not earn its place as a helpful description.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and a very simple tool, the description should clarify what the status output looks like or what actions it supports. It does not, leaving the tool's purpose and response format completely undefined.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Although the description adds no parameter information, none is required. The schema coverage is 100% by virtue of having no properties.

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 is a noun phrase, 'RPC 연결 상태' ('RPC connection status'), with no verb indicating an action. It loosely suggests the tool reports health but doesn't clearly state what it does. It does not differentiate from sibling 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no usage contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a significant non-obvious behavior: the tool is paid and returns error code 402 if called without payment. It also describes what it returns (holdings and activity). This is valuable beyond the name and schema.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a parameter note. It front-loads the purpose, then states the payment caveat, and finally explains the address parameter. Every word earns its place 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?

For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, its paid nature, the 402 error, and the address parameter. It does not describe return format or examples, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description adds that 'address' is a Solana wallet address, which is critical semantic information beyond the schema's bare 'string' type. It provides enough detail for a single parameter.

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 inspects a wallet to see what it holds and what it did (holdings and transactions). The verb 'inspect' implies examination, and the resource is a wallet. It is somewhat vague about the exact output format but distinguishes from siblings by focusing on wallet content and history.

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 context that the tool is paid and returns 402 without payment, which is a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like simulate_transaction or screen_token, nor does it provide exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the topic and recommends reading it before calling, but does not explain what the tool does when invoked, what output it produces, or whether it is read-only. This is a significant gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys both the topic and usage timing. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description is simple and workable but thin. It tells the agent when to use it ('before calling') and the general topic, but does not describe the return value or the specific content of payment instructions, leaving some ambiguity about what the agent will receive.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete by default and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the purpose is sufficient without parameter context.

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 identifies the topic (how to receive payment) but lacks an explicit action verb, making it unclear whether the tool returns instructions or performs a task. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools, though the subject matter is reasonably clear.

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 phrase 'read before calling' provides explicit usage context, telling the agent when to invoke this tool (as a prerequisite). It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is clear and actionable for an informational tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It openly discloses the paid nature and the 402 error response, and explains the behavior of the optional 'accounts' parameter (empty means global sample). It does not mention other behavioral aspects like rate limits or response format, but the key traits are covered.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states what the tool does; the second adds critical payment behavior; the third explains the parameter. Every sentence earns its place 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?

Given the simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, payment requirement, and parameter semantics well. It lacks an explicit description of the return value or response structure, which would be helpful since no output schema exists, but the implied answer (a fee amount) is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 provides zero description for the only parameter, and schema coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by explaining that 'accounts' is optional, represents a list of writable accounts of interest, and that leaving it empty uses a global sample. This adds significant semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose: to determine the priority fee required to include a transaction in a block. The verb 'pay' and the specific resource ('priority fee') make it distinct from siblings like health or simulate_transaction.

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 (when needing a priority fee estimate) and includes an important usage condition: it is paid, and calling without payment returns 402. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, which prevents a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool is paid and returns HTTP 402 if called without payment, which is a critical operational detail. However, it does not describe the success response format or any other side effects or requirements.

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 extremely concise, with two short lines. It front-loads the purpose and payment requirement, then defines the parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, paid status, error code, and parameter definition. It lacks a description of the return value, but this is not a major gap given the simplicity of the tool.

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 only parameter 'mint' is explained as 'SPL token mint address' in the description, adding meaning beyond the bare schema title 'Mint'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this explanation is essential and adequately clarifies the expected input.

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's function: 'Checks whether the token is a scam before buying.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('token'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like inspect_wallet or simulate_transaction by focusing on scam detection prior to purchase.

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 a clear usage context: use this tool before buying a token to verify if it's a scam. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to guide selection among the listed siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It correctly implies the tool is informational (describing what the service does and its price), but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, non-destructive, or what return format to expect. For a simple info tool, this is adequate but could be more transparent.

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 short sentence that conveys both purpose and usage context without any filler words. It is concise and front-loaded, with every word earning its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essentials: what the tool does, the pricing context, and when to use it. It could be more explicit about the exact content returned, but for an informational tool, this is sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but with no parameters this is a non-issue; the baseline of 4 for a 0-parameter tool 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 states the tool provides 'what this service does and how much it is' (이 서비스가 무엇을 하고 얼마인지), clearly indicating an overview of service features and pricing. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', the intent is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like health or payment_info, which focus on different aspects.

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 advises 'good to read before calling' (호출 전에 읽으면 좋다), implying this tool should be invoked first to understand the service and its cost. This provides a clear usage context, though it does not mention alternatives or situations where this tool should not be used.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job: it discloses that the tool never executes the transaction, that it is paid, and that calling without payment returns a 402 error. This is essential behavioral information.

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 concise and front-loaded: first sentence states the core purpose, second covers key behavioral caveats, third defines the parameter. Every sentence contributes value without 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete: it covers purpose, non-execution, payment requirements, error behavior, and parameter format. No significant gaps remain.

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?

Although the schema provides zero description coverage, the description explicitly explains transaction_base64 as a base64-encoded signed or unsigned transaction. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema type definition.

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 it simulates a transaction result before sending, and explicitly says it is simulation only and never sends. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_wallet or screen_token by focusing on transaction simulation rather than inspection.

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?

It tells the agent to use this tool before sending a transaction to preview the result. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for a simple simulation tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.