Simulate a Solana transaction before signing it: balance changes, labeled programs, deterministic risk rules, and a proceed/caution/avoid recommendation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transaction | Yes | Base64-encoded unsigned (or signed) Solana transaction |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that simulation produces balance changes and a recommendation, implying a non-mutating operation, but it does not explicitly state that no on-chain effect occurs, nor does it mention permissions or rate limits. Given the absence of annotations, this is adequate but not exhaustive.
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 lists key outputs without fluff. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and results.
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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns (balance changes, labeled programs, risk rules, recommendation). It could clarify the format of the recommendation or specify determinism, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.
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 sole parameter 'transaction' is fully described in the schema as 'Base64-encoded unsigned (or signed) Solana transaction', and the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; no extra context is provided.
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 a specific verb ('Simulate') and resource ('Solana transaction'), and enumerates concrete outputs (balance changes, labeled programs, risk rules, recommendation). It distinguishes from siblings like solana_tx_explain (explains) and tx_decode (decodes) by emphasizing pre-signing 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 phrase 'before signing it' provides a clear temporal context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, though the sibling list suggests other transaction-related tools that could be used instead.
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.