Skip to main content
Glama

Blueprint Agentic Staking (Solentic)

by io.github.blueprint-infrastructure

Generate Wallet

generate_wallet
Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns runnable code that creates a Solana keypair. Solentic cannot generate the keypair for you and never sees the private key — generation must happen wherever you run code (the agent process, a code-interpreter tool, a Python/Node sandbox, the user's shell). The response includes the snippet ready to execute. After running it, fund the resulting publicKey and call the stake tool with {walletAddress, secretKey, amountSol} to stake in one call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations indicating readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds valuable context: Solentic never sees the private key and cannot generate it server-side. This explains the privacy model and execution requirements, going beyond what annotations state.

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?

The description is four sentences long and each sentence adds necessary information: what it does, why it must be run locally, what the response includes, and how to use it afterwards. It is slightly verbose but still well-structured and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the zero-parameter schema, no output schema, and the tool's simple nature, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, usage context, privacy implications, and next steps, leaving no critical gaps for the agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings, and it effectively describes what the response contains (runnable code) instead.

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?

The description clearly states the tool 'Returns runnable code that creates a Solana keypair,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on keypair generation rather than balance checks, staking, or transactions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly explains when to use this tool: whenever a Solana keypair is needed, and clarifies that generation must happen in the agent process or user shell. It also provides a follow-up workflow: fund the publicKey and call the stake tool with specific parameters, giving clear contextual guidance.

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

All Blueprint Agentic Staking (Solentic) toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between the 'stake' and 'create_stake_transaction' tools, as well as between 'unstake' and 'create_unstake_transaction', and 'withdraw' and 'withdraw_stake', which could cause confusion. However, descriptions clearly differentiate between automated and advanced manual use cases, mitigating ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, with clear and descriptive naming (e.g., check_balance, get_staking_summary, register_webhook). There are no deviations in style or convention, making the set highly predictable and readable.

Tool Count3/5

With 26 tools, the count is borderline high for the staking domain, potentially overwhelming for agents. While many tools provide specialized functionality, some could be consolidated (e.g., multiple transaction-building tools), making the set feel slightly heavy but still within a reasonable scope.

Completeness5/5

The toolset comprehensively covers the staking lifecycle, including address checking, balance queries, staking, unstaking, withdrawing, monitoring, simulation, and verification. There are no obvious gaps, and tools provide clear guidance and alternatives, ensuring agents can handle all necessary operations without dead ends.

Resources