Pre-flight transaction simulation for agents: dry-run a serialized Solana transaction (simulateTransaction) BEFORE executing — will it succeed, compute units consumed, program logs, and the error if any. NEVER signs or sends; simulation only, NOT a guarantee of the real on-chain outcome. NOT financial advice. Requires ?tx=.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tx | Yes | Base64-encoded serialized Solana transaction to dry-run. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: explicitly discloses that it NEVER signs or sends, that simulation is NOT a guarantee of the real on-chain outcome, and adds a non-financial-advice caveat. For a simulation tool these are the critical behavioral traits an agent must know before calling it.
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 paragraph that leads with purpose and safety traits. It is efficient overall, though the 'NOT financial advice' clause reads as boilerplate and the parenthetical adds minor noise. Nothing critical is buried.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers purpose, input requirement, safety behavior (no signing/sending), non-guarantee caveat, and the return contents (success, compute units, program logs, error). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 100% and the single 'tx' parameter is fully documented as 'Base64-encoded serialized Solana transaction to dry-run.' The description only adds the query-parameter form (?tx=), which is marginal value over the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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', 'dry-run') and resource (a serialized Solana transaction), and enumerates what it reports (success, compute units, program logs, error). The phrase 'BEFORE executing' and 'Pre-flight transaction simulation' clearly differentiate it from sibling execution/inspection tools like solmachina_tx_inspect or solmachina_verify_receipt.
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?
Provides clear contextual guidance: use it BEFORE executing a transaction, as a pre-flight check. It also states the required input format (?tx=<base64 serialized transaction>). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, though the purpose itself largely implies the use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.