Solana AI Gateway

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that recent transaction signatures are fetched and gives no details about ordering, pagination, rate limits, error behavior, or that only signatures (not full transaction data) are returned.

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 one-sentence description is front-loaded and contains no filler words. It states the core purpose efficiently, though its brevity sacrifices important behavioral and usage context.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits guidance on 'limit', 'network', return formatting, ordering/pagination semantics, and when to use this tool over its siblings, leaving an agent under-informed.

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 description coverage is only 33%, with only 'wallet' described. The description repeats the wallet concept without elaborating on the 'limit' or 'network' parameters, so it adds little beyond the schema and fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 names the specific operation ('get recent transaction signatures') and the subject ('a wallet address'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_solana_balance or simulate_solana_transaction because it targets transaction signatures, not balances or simulation.

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 no when-to-use guidance nor any mention of alternative tools. An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and operation; there is no context about when this tool is preferable to siblings or how network/limit choices affect behavior.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-style operation by mentioning 'balance', but it does not disclose network default behavior, input validation, error cases, or what the balance result looks like.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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?

The description captures the core purpose but omits context that an agent would need for correct invocation, such as the network parameter's semantics, default behavior, and expected return value. With no annotations and no output schema, these gaps are not filled elsewhere.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'wallet' refers to a wallet address, but it says nothing about the 'network' parameter, its enum values, or its default of 'mainnet-beta'.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('SOL balance') with a clear scope ('any wallet address'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools, but the name and resource make the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever a native SOL balance is needed. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer instead, though the context of 'any wallet address' provides a mild scoping signal.

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?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the blockhash is 'finalized', which adds behavioral context about finality. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, network implications, or any potential errors. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich.

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 that clearly states the core function. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 and no annotations, the description could benefit from mentioning the return format (e.g., a string blockhash) and the network parameter. It is minimal but sufficient for a simple getter, though the lack of parameter and output details leaves some gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The description does not mention the 'network' parameter at all. The enum and default in the schema are self-explanatory, but the description adds no value in explaining how network affects the result.

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 a specific action 'Get' and a specific resource 'finalized blockhash', with a qualifier that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recent_transactions or get_solana_balance. An agent can clearly identify what this tool does and how it differs from alternatives.

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. The description only states the function, with no mention of use cases (e.g., constructing transactions) or when not to use it. There is no reference to sibling tools or context for choosing this 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, the description carries the full burden. It adds some behavioral context by saying 'all' (comprehensive listing) and mentioning 'balances and mints' (hinting at the response), but it does not disclose edge cases, whether zero-balance accounts are included, or any read-only guarantees.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly states the action, resource, and scope, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple read tool, but it lacks details about network behavior (e.g., mainnet-beta vs devnet), how the output is structured, or any caveats about the 'all' scope. Given no output schema, the description could explain return values more explicitly.

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 already provides a description for 'wallet' and an enum with default for 'network'. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats, constraints, or relationships beyond what the schema contains. With 50% schema coverage, the missing network description is not compensated for.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('SPL token balances and mints') with a clear scope ('owned by a wallet'). This distinctly separates it from siblings like get_solana_balance and get_recent_transactions, so an agent can identify its purpose immediately.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor any exclusions or alternative routing. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case from the tool name and purpose.

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 the key behavior that no broadcast occurs, which implies no on-chain state change, but it omits other important behavioral details such as whether a recent blockhash is required, what the return value looks like, and how simulation failures are reported.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The core action and the key distinction from broadcasting are front-loaded, and every word earns 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?

Despite a simple two-parameter schema, the tool simulates transaction execution, which is conceptually complex. The description does not mention return values, error semantics, or prerequisites like a valid blockhash. With no output schema or annotations, this leaves an agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.

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 only 50%, and the description adds nothing about parameters. The transaction parameter is well described in the schema, but the network parameter is left as a bare enum without explanation of how it selects the cluster. The description fails to compensate for this gap.

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 'simulate' and resource 'Solana transaction', with the critical qualifier 'without broadcasting it' that distinguishes it from sending or broadcasting tools. It clearly separates from sibling getter tools like get_solana_balance and get_recent_transactions.

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 'without broadcasting it' implies the intended use case of a dry-run before sending, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are named, though none of the sibling tools perform a similar function.

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