get_account_detailOverview of a Solana account: SOL balance (lamports + UI), owner program, executable flag, rent epoch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Solana public key (base58) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Account details including balance, owner, executable flag, rent epoch | |
| path | Yes | API endpoint path |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the specific returned fields but does not disclose other behavioral aspects (e.g., permission requirements, rate limits, error conditions). This is adequate but not exceptional given the annotation coverage.
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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.
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 simplicity (1 parameter, no nested objects, full schema coverage, existence of output schema) and the rich annotations, the description is complete enough to understand the tool's functionality. No gaps that harm usability.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes the 'address' parameter as a base58 Solana public key. The description adds context by implying the account is on Solana, but does not provide new semantic details beyond what the schema offers. 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?
The description clearly states the tool provides an 'Overview of a Solana account' and lists specific fields (SOL balance, owner, executable flag, rent epoch). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_token_holdings or get_token_meta, which focus on token-specific data.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no comparison with siblings or mention of prerequisites or scenarios. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.
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.
Several tools are near-duplicates: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly described as currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and multiple prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage) overlap in purpose. The Solana-specific tools are distinct, but the large non-Solana cluster creates real ambiguity.
All tools use snake_case, but naming styles vary widely: get_/list_ verbs, ask_pipeworx family, polymarket_* cluster, and descriptive noun-style names like entity_profile, validate_claim, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency. There is no single consistent verb_noun convention across the set.
With 36 tools, the count is high, but the critical problem is scope mismatch: a server named Solscan has only 5 Solana-related tools, while 31 are unrelated data/research/prediction-market utilities. This makes the tool count inappropriate for the apparent purpose.
As a Solana explorer, the set covers only account details, token holdings, token metadata, transactions, and transfers; major gaps include blocks, token price/history, NFTs, programs/staking, and more comprehensive transfer history. For the broader data-research theme, coverage is broad but scattered and lacks a single coherent domain.