Submit a wallet-signed mint-to tx. Structural re-verifier pins the mint-to ix + fee.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signedTransaction | Yes | The base64 VersionedTransaction returned by the matching /build call, signed with your key. Do not submit it yourself; this endpoint submits it. | |
| lastValidBlockHeight | Yes | The `lastValidBlockHeight` returned alongside the unsigned tx by /build. Past this block height the tx can no longer land. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. 'Structural re-verifier pins the mint-to ix + fee' adds some internal context, but it does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior.
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 short sentences with no redundancy. However, the second sentence is jargon-heavy and may be unclear to some agents, slightly reducing conciseness effectiveness.
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 is provided, yet the description omits any information about the return value (e.g., transaction hash, confirmation). Given the tool submits a transaction, this is a significant gap for an agent to understand the result.
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 parameter descriptions are clear and self-contained. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, achieving the baseline score of 3.
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 states the verb 'Submit' and the resource 'wallet-signed mint-to tx', indicating the tool's action. It contrasts with sibling tools 'build' and 'read' by focusing on execution, but does not explicitly differentiate beyond the verb.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'build' or 'read'. The description implies it follows a build step, but does not state when not to use it or mention any prerequisites.
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.