submit_transactionAdvanced: Submit a pre-signed transaction to Solana. Only needed if you used create_stake_transaction/create_unstake_transaction/withdraw_stake and signed locally. Most agents should use the one-shot stake/unstake/withdraw tools instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signedTransaction | Yes | Fully signed transaction as a base64-encoded string |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is disclosed. The description adds valuable context about the 'Advanced' nature and the prerequisite local-signing workflow, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them. It doesn't detail failure modes or side effects, but the existing annotation coverage lowers the bar.
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, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence adds essential context (what it does, when it's needed, and when to avoid it). No fluff, and the 'Advanced' flag is a useful signal.
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) and strong annotation coverage, the description adequately explains the workflow and alternatives. It lacks an explicit mention of return values, but for a transaction submission this is a minor gap, and the description otherwise provides a complete picture of when and how to use 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 schema already fully describes the parameter (signedTransaction as a base64 string), and the description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: submitting a pre-signed transaction to Solana. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning the create_stake_transaction/create_unstake_transaction/withdraw_stake workflow and directing most agents to the one-shot stake/unstake/withdraw tools instead.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance (after local signing of create_* transactions) and when-not-to-use guidance (most agents should use one-shot tools). It names the specific alternatives, making it clear how this tool fits among siblings.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.