solradar-mcp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads/retrieves data (indicated by 'Get'), and details the exact information returned (trust score, rug-risk flags, holder analysis, creator track record). It does not mention side effects (none expected for a read operation) or rate limits, but the read-only nature is clearly implied. It adds value beyond the title by naming the data source and analysis dimensions.

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 primary purpose, no redundant phrases. Every word earns its place, and it wastes no space repeating the title.

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, the description gives a solid overview: what it does, the input, and the categories of output. It could have briefly mentioned how to interpret scores/flags, but for invoking the tool correctly, the description is sufficiently complete.

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% ('Solana token mint address'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds specificity by noting the token type ('pump.fun / meme coin') and clarifies 'mint (token contract) address,' providing meaning beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 a specific action ('Get SolRadar's trust score, rug-risk flags, holder analysis, and creator track record') for a specific resource (Solana token). This distinguishes it from siblings like check_wallet_activity (wallet-focused) and get_trending_tokens (discovery tool).

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 context for use is clear: it is for checking the safety of a Solana token, specifically pump.fun/meme coins. It implies 'use this when you need a trust assessment of a token contract,' though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state exclusions. This is a clear context with no explicit 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies this as a read operation ('Get') and gives examples of behavior labels, but it leaves terms like 'recent' and 'activity' undefined, and does not mention any potential side effects, permissions, or data limitations.

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 conveys the tool's purpose and output without wasted words. Every phrase adds value: 'recent transaction activity', 'behavior label', and the label examples.

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 gives a high-level overview of the output (activity and label) but does not specify what 'activity' includes or how 'recent' is defined. It also does not address how this tool fits with sibling tools, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 100% coverage for the single 'address' parameter, describing it as 'Solana wallet address'. The description's phrase 'for a Solana wallet address' adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 a specific action ('Get') and resource ('recent transaction activity and behavior label') for a Solana wallet address. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_token and get_trending_tokens by focusing on wallet-level activity and behavior labeling.

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 wallet activity or behavior labels, but it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The context is clear, but there are no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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 burden of explaining behavior. 'List' indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or response format. Some transparency is present, but gaps remain.

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 action ('List') and includes all key information: categories, source, and platform. It contains no filler or redundant details.

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 is relatively simple (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a basic understanding but lacks explicit mention of how parameters control the output or how it relates to sibling tools. It is minimally complete but not thoroughly contextualized.

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 description mentions 'trending, newest, or graduated' which aligns with the `type` parameter's enum values, adding context for that parameter. However, it does not explain the `limit` parameter or explicitly tie these words to the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates for missing parameter semantics.

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 identifies the tool's function: 'List currently trending, newest, or graduated tokens'. It names the resource (tokens tracked by SolRadar) and the platform (Solana/pump.fun), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_token and check_wallet_activity.

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 the tool is for getting token lists, but it does not explicitly explain when to use it instead of check_token or check_wallet_activity. There is no exclusion criteria or direct comparison, so usage guidance is only 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.