Solana Wallet Tracker & Alerts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful behavior beyond the obvious fetch: returns up to 20 most recent events, and should be polled periodically. It does not describe error handling or token expiration, but for a simple polling read tool it is reasonably transparent.

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 with no filler. The core purpose, token source, result cap, and polling guidance are all present and front-loaded. Every sentence 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?

For a simple one-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential operational details: what is returned, the cap of 20 events, and the polling instruction. It could mention token validity or empty results, but nothing critical is missing 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% and the token parameter is already described as the poll token from watch_wallet. The description adds extra semantic value by clarifying that the token exists specifically when no webhook_url was given, which helps the agent understand the token's provenance and conditionality.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('recorded alert events for a watch token'), and ties the token to watch_wallet. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings: watch_wallet creates/returns the token, while get_alerts consumes it, and wallet_activity is a different data source.

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 states exactly when to use this tool: with a token returned by watch_wallet when no webhook_url was given. It also gives the explicit instruction to poll periodically. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the usage context is clear enough.

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 provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool reads mainnet wallet data, returns current SOL balance in lamports, returns exactly the 5 most recent transaction signatures with timing and status, and handles empty-account stake detection. This is solid behavioral transparency for a lookup tool, though it does not mention error cases or network/RPC dependencies.

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 deliver the full scope and a usage directive with no filler. The output specifics are front-loaded and the closing sentence tells the agent exactly when to invoke the tool. Every sentence 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?

For a single-parameter, no-output-schema lookup tool, the description is complete: it specifies the network, the inputs, all returned components, and the intended use case. The listed outputs compensate for the absence of an output schema, and no critical missing context is apparent given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already documents the wallet parameter as a Base58 Solana pubkey of 32-48 chars. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing that it is a wallet identifier. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 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 ('Look up') and names the exact resource (Solana mainnet wallet) along with the concrete data returned: balance, recent transaction signatures with block time and success/failure, and stake-account status. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like watch_wallet and get_alerts, which imply monitoring or alerting rather than a point-in-time lookup.

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 a clear usage context: 'Use this to inspect any wallet's recent on-chain activity.' This implies the tool is for one-off, read-only inspection rather than ongoing watching or alerting. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the 15-second polling interval, records only NEW transactions, and explains the poll-token fallback. It does not mention response format, retention, or error behavior, but the key behavioral traits are clearly stated.

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 compact and well-structured: core action first, then behavioral detail, then conditional guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler 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?

For a monitoring tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential flow: start monitoring, poll interval, new-transaction recording, webhook vs poll-token behavior, and next step via get_alerts. It does not state what the immediate response contains or what happens on invalid input, but it is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds conditional meaning for webhook_url: it must be https, and omitting it triggers a poll-token flow. It does not add much beyond the schema for wallet or label, but the added webhook semantics justify a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Start monitoring a Solana wallet.' It further clarifies the tool's behavior (polls every 15s, records new transactions) and distinguishes it from get_alerts by explaining the follow-up flow, rather than merely repeating 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 gives clear conditional usage guidance: pass webhook_url if webhooks are possible, otherwise omit it and call get_alerts with the poll token. It does not explicitly mention the sibling tool wallet_activity or state when to prefer this tool over it, so it misses full when-not-to-use coverage.

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