Build the Deposit tx (public → confidential pending). amount in base units (u64 string).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | A Solana address in base58, 32-44 chars. | |
| owner | Yes | A Solana address in base58, 32-44 chars. | |
| amount | Yes | Amount in base units as a decimal string (not a float). For a 6-decimal mint, "1000000" is 1 token. | |
| decimals | Yes | The mint's decimals. Must match the mint exactly or the transfer fails on-chain. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 states 'Build the Deposit tx' but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or what side effects occur. Since it's a build step, likely it constructs a transaction without executing, but this is not explicitly 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 concise, consisting of one sentence plus a note on amount. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Minor improvement could separate the parameter clarification for better readability.
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 builds a deposit transaction but does not describe what the output is (e.g., serialized transaction or transaction ID). Given no output schema, the description should clarify the return value. Also missing prerequisites like owner authorization or account existence.
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%, with each parameter already described. The description adds 'amount in base units (u64 string)' reinforcing the schema, but does not provide supplementary meaning beyond what the schema already offers. 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 builds a deposit transaction for moving assets from public to confidential pending. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like solknife_ct_withdraw_build and solknife_ct_transfer_build by specifying 'Deposit' and the direction 'public → confidential pending'.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., withdraw or transfer). It implies usage for deposits via the name and description, but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.