Solana MCP by Vybe

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows the tool can modify state. The description does not add further behavioral details (e.g., side effects, error handling), but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 sentence of 12 words that conveys the core purpose. It is concise but could potentially be more structured by front-loading the key action.

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 output schema and a complex nested input parameter. The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., response object, status code) or how errors are handled, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 all parameters are fully defined in the input schema. The description does not add any extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 executes an API request using a HAR request object. It specifies the verb 'executes' and the resource 'API request', and the HAR format distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with endpoint metadata.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like get-endpoint or pay-with-x402. The description does not mention any prerequisites or situations where this tool is inappropriate.

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?

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying that it includes security schemes and servers. No contradictions; adds context beyond annotations.

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, efficient sentence with no fluff. It conveys necessary information without 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 simple read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and annotations, the description is fairly complete. It lacks mention of return format, but that is implied by 'gets detailed information'.

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 both parameters have clear descriptions. The description does not add any additional semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'Gets' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific API endpoint', and specifies what includes (security schemes and servers). This distinguishes it from siblings like list-endpoints or execute-request.

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 use when you need details of a specific endpoint (distinguishing from list-endpoints or search-endpoints), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating a safe, bounded read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the output format ('organized by path') and the direct usability with 'get-endpoint', enhancing behavioral understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds a practical usage note in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and concise.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema) and annotations covering safety and boundedness, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does and how to use the results. A minor gap is the lack of detail on output structure (e.g., format specifics), but this is acceptable for a list tool with good annotations.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4 as per rules. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output usage, which is sufficient given the lack of inputs.

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 specific action ('Lists all API paths and their HTTP methods with summaries') and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning 'Results can be passed directly into 'get-endpoint''. It explicitly identifies the resource (API paths) and organizational method (organized by path), avoiding tautology with the tool name.

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 for usage by stating that results can be passed to 'get-endpoint', implying this tool is for discovery and the sibling is for detailed retrieval. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'search-endpoints' for filtered searches, leaving some guidance implicit.

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?

The description suggests a financial transaction (pay-per-call USDC), but the annotation readOnlyHint: true indicates no side effects, creating a contradiction. The description does not clarify whether the tool actually deducts USDC, is idempotent, or what happens upon multiple calls. This lack of behavioral detail is critical for a payment-related 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the usage condition. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy. It is optimally concise for the information provided.

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?

Despite having annotations and no parameters, the description fails to explain critical aspects: what the tool returns (output), whether it actually executes the endpoint call or just sets up payment, and the nature of the pay-per-call mechanism. Given the complexity of a payment tool, this is incomplete.

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 zero parameters, so no additional meaning is needed. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It is sufficient that no parameters are documented.

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 is for accessing Vybe endpoints via x402 pay-per-call USDC when no API key is available. It identifies the target use case (AI agent, throwaway script, premium-only path) and distinguishes it from API-key-based access, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'execute-request'.

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 explicitly says 'Before calling any Vybe endpoint without an API key... use this', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It implies when not to use (when you have an API key) but does not name specific alternatives or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Annotations already mark as readOnlyHint=true, so description adds moderate extra context like 'deep search' and scope. Could be more transparent about search behavior (e.g., fuzzy matching, ranking).

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: first states purpose, second gives usage and output direction. No wasted words, efficient and clear.

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?

Tool is simple (1 param, no output schema). Description covers purpose, usage, and integration with get-endpoint. Lacks details on result format or limits, but adequate for a search 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?

Single parameter 'pattern' is fully described in schema (100% coverage). Description adds no significant additional meaning beyond 'search keywords', meeting baseline.

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?

Clearly states the tool performs a deep search through paths, operations, and parameters to discover API endpoints. Distinguishes from siblings like list-endpoints (listing) and get-endpoint (specific).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: to find specific API capabilities, required parameters, or data models. Also suggests passing results to get-endpoint. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives beyond hint.

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