sol-defi-desk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful trait, that the call is FREE (no cost), but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or what the returned summary contains, which matters because it is ostensibly a discovery/overview 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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the most decision-relevant token ('FREE'). It is efficiently sized, though the parenthetical branding is filler that does not help an agent decide.

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 no-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description should explain what the summary covers so the agent knows what it will learn. Instead it only gestures at 'paid tools' and an operator tagline, leaving the payload undefined.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty object schema matches the no-argument nature of the call.

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?

It states this returns a 'buyer-facing summary' of 'sol-defi-desk HTTP + MCP paid tools', which signals a meta/overview tool rather than a token operation, so it is distinguishable from siblings in kind. But the phrasing is marketing-speak ('openly AI operator Survivor') and never states plainly what the agent actually receives, leaving the purpose only half-pinned.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus mint_preflight or token_check, nor any precondition or trigger. The 'FREE' prefix implies a no-cost discovery step, but that is inference, not stated usage 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 and does well: it discloses the cost model (FREE), the absence of network calls ("No RPC"), and that validation is shape-based rather than authoritative. It stops short of stating limits, e.g. that a passing shape check says nothing about token legitimacy or issuer reputation.

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?

Three short clauses, zero waste, with the cost and purpose front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is buried.

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, no-output-schema preflight tool, the description is complete enough to call correctly: it covers purpose, cost, no-RPC behavior, and placement in the workflow. A brief note on what "known issuer assets" means for the response would close the remaining gap.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the base58 mint address. The description's mention of "base58 shape" adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: validate Solana mint base58 shape, plus a secondary behavior (note known issuer assets). It explicitly contrasts itself with the paid sibling token_check, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

"Use before paying for token_check" gives an explicit sequencing rule and names the alternative tool. The cost framing (FREE, no RPC) makes the selection condition unambiguous.

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 and does well: it discloses the price ($0.005 USDC via x402), that the source is direct on-chain reads, that riskLevel is a heuristic (not authoritative), and that failed lookups are not settled. It omits auth/wallet requirements, rate limits, and latency, which matter for a paid endpoint.

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?

A single dense sentence with zero filler; price and data source are front-loaded. The parenthetical enumeration of checks is long but each item is informative, not padding.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must imply the return payload, and the enumerated checks plus the heuristic riskLevel do that adequately for a single-parameter read tool. Payment terms are covered, though response shape and failure semantics (e.g., what a 'failed lookup' returns) remain slightly under-specified.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the base58 mint address. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, which is the expected baseline here.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Solana token safety check') and enumerates the exact dimensions examined (mint/freeze authority, Token-2022 extensions, metadata mutability, holder concentration, riskLevel), so the agent knows precisely what it returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling mint_preflight, which plausibly overlaps in scope.

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?

Usage is only implied: a paid safety check is naturally used before interacting with a token. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to mint_preflight / token_check_batch as alternatives, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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 and does disclose two meaningful behavioral traits: the tool is paid ($0.01 USDC fixed via x402) and it enforces a 1–5 mint batch limit. That cost/payment-mechanism disclosure is genuinely useful, though it stops short of describing rate limits, error handling, or what the safety checks actually evaluate.

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?

A single tightly-packed sentence front-loads the purpose, the cost, and the batch bound with no wasted words. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description ideally should describe the return shape; instead it defers via 'same fields as token_check per mint', which is a partial hint but forces the agent to consult the sibling. Combined with no annotations, the definition is adequate for invocation but leaves the result contract underspecified.

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% — the schema already documents 'Comma-separated base58 mint addresses (1–5)'. The description's '1–5 mints' and 'same fields as token_check per mint' largely restate that constraint rather than adding syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'batch Solana token safety checks' — and explicitly scopes it to '1–5 mints'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling token_check by naming it and clarifying that it returns the same per-mint fields, so an agent can tell the batch variant apart from the single-mint 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 word 'batch' combined with the '1–5 mints' bound implicitly signals when to use this over the single-mint token_check, and the reference to token_check establishes the relationship between the two. However, it never states an explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use rule (e.g. prefer token_check for a single mint), leaving the routing partly to inference.

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