Decode a Solana transaction into a structured summary: success/fee/compute-units, the programs it invoked (named for well-known ones), SOL balance deltas and SPL token balance deltas. Reports on-chain effects only, never intent. Requires ?sig=.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sig | Yes | Base58 Solana transaction signature to decode. |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the tool is read-only in nature (reports on-chain effects, never intent), lists the fields returned, and implies no side effects. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for a simple inspect tool this is adequate.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is stated first, followed by the requirement. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains what the output contains (success/fee/compute-units, programs, balance deltas) and the input requirement. It does not detail error conditions or response format, but these are not critical for a low-complexity inspect 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 describes the single parameter (sig) as a Base58 transaction signature, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds the note 'Requires ?sig=<transaction signature>', which is redundant but confirms the parameter is required. No additional semantic value beyond the schema 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 states a specific verb (decode) and resource (Solana transaction), and specifies the output (success/fee/compute-units, programs invoked, balance deltas). It also clarifies what it does not report (intent), distinguishing it from potential intent-focused tools. This is clear and distinct.
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 clear context: it decodes an existing transaction and reports on-chain effects only, never intent. It also instructs that a signature is required. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity relative to siblings like solmachina_simulate or solmachina_verify_receipt.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.