Return metadata for the cipher-solana-wallet-audit v1.4.0 ruleset — the free MIT GitHub Action that catches Solana wallet anti-patterns in CI: plaintext private keys (base58 OR hex), seed phrases (in comments OR string literals), Anchor.toml wallet leaks, Token2022 transfer-hook abuse, Drift-hack-derived admin bundles, leaked .env files, hardcoded RPC URLs. Free, no payment required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns metadata and is free, indicating a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not explicitly confirm no destructive behavior or authentication 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 a single long sentence that lists many anti-patterns, making it somewhat dense. While informative, it could be more concise or structured (e.g., a bullet list) for readability.
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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description states it 'returns metadata' but does not specify what the metadata contains (e.g., list of rules, version details). This lack of detail leaves the agent unsure of the return value.
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 no parameters (0 params, 100% coverage). Per guidelines, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because none are needed, but it does add context about the ruleset version and scope.
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 returns metadata for a specific ruleset (cipher-solana-wallet-audit v1.4.0) and lists specific anti-patterns it catches. It distinguishes from sibling tools like solana_wallet_scan by focusing on metadata of a ruleset rather than actual scanning.
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 mentions the tool is free but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like solana_wallet_scan. It implies usage for obtaining ruleset information but lacks when-not or alternative comparisons.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with detailed descriptions, and there is no functional overlap between any tools, even those in similar domains like geocoding (forward vs reverse) or Solana wallet analysis (general scan vs specific protocol exposure).
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some use verb_noun (check_drift_exposure), others use data source prefix (coinalyze_funding_rates, openfda_adverse_events), and a few use domain prefix (solana_wallet_scan). This mixture of conventions makes it hard to predict naming for similar functions.
The server claims to be for Solana & Crypto but only 6 of 15 tools are crypto-related, while the rest cover unrelated domains like medical, nutrition, and geocoding. This dilutes focus and suggests the tool count is mismatched for the stated purpose.
For a server named 'Paid Solana & Crypto Tools', the crypto toolset is incomplete, missing common operations like token swaps, DeFi protocol interactions, or NFT queries. The inclusion of many non-crypto tools does not fill these gaps.