spraay-solana-gateway

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It discloses capacity, auto-chunking, and cost via x402, but omits important mutation details such as whether the send is irreversible, failure handling, or that it executes real transfers from the user's wallet. It adds some behavioral context but not enough to fully prepare an agent for side effects.

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 four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes only essential details (capacity, auto-chunking, cost). No wasted words or redundant schema repetition.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers key operational aspects: batch purpose, recipient limit, auto-chunking, and cost. It could add when to use for SOL vs tokens or confirm the sending wallet context, but it is largely complete for correct invocation.

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% as the 'recipients' parameter and its nested properties are fully described. The description only reiterates the max count from the schema and adds the auto-chunking behavior, which is not parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 batches SOL sends to multiple wallets, with the verb 'send' and specific resource 'SOL'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like batch_send_token and quote/status by explicitly indicating SOL, not tokens, and batch sending.

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 gives clear context for when to use (sending SOL to many recipients) and adds practical details like up to 1000 recipients and auto-chunking. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It discloses the $0.01 USDC cost and token account auto-creation, which are meaningful side effects. But it omits irreversibility, failure behavior, permission requirements, and any rate or size limits beyond schema maxItems, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentences front-load the core action, include concrete token examples, and add the practical cost detail. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and failure modes. It covers the action, cost, and side effect, but not what the agent can expect as a response, whether the operation is synchronous, or how errors are signaled—making it incomplete for a transaction 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%—both 'mint' and 'recipients' have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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's function with a specific verb ('Batch send'), identifies the resource ('any SPL token'), and gives concrete examples. It naturally distinguishes from the sibling SOL batch send tool by explicitly targeting token assets.

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 implies usage for SPL token transfers and provides helpful context like cost and auto-account creation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, such as 'use batch_send_sol for SOL transfers', so it falls short of explicit exclusion guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contents (fees, tx count, timing) and importantly reveals the quote costs $0.001 USDC via x402, a key behavioral trait. It doesn't mention auth or side effects, but 'cost estimate' implies no token movement.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. The cost disclosure is essential and concise. No wasted words.

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 a simple 2-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains what it returns and the cost. It could explicitly say 'does not send tokens' but 'cost estimate' implies that. Fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the schema already explains both 'token' and 'recipients'. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 uses a specific verb ('Get a cost estimate') and names the resource ('Spraay batch send on Solana'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tools that actually send or check status. It immediately conveys what the tool does.

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?

It implies usage context: cost estimate before batch send. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but 'Get a cost estimate' naturally positions it as a precursor to the batch send tools. Clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost of $0.001 USDC via x402, which is important behavioral context. However, it does not mention return format, potential errors, or whether it requires authentication, leaving some gaps for a simple read operation.

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, front-loaded with purpose and followed by cost. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers purpose and cost but does not explain what the response contains (e.g., status value, error handling). Since no output schema exists, the description should carry more weight for return-value expectations, which it lacks.

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 only parameter (txid as 'Solana transaction signature') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 action ('Check the status of a Solana transaction') and the resource ('by its signature'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that send tokens or provide quotes. It is specific and actionable.

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 implies usage when you need transaction status, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternative tools. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.