Submit the signed propose-transaction tx.
| 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 carry the burden. It only says 'submit', which is vague about side effects, idempotency, or network interaction. The parameter description for signedTransaction adds a warning about not submitting yourself, but the main description lacks behavioral context. Disclosing that this sends a transaction to the blockchain would improve transparency.
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words. Very concise. However, it could be slightly expanded with workflow context without becoming verbose. The brevity here is acceptable but not exemplary.
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, so description should explain what the tool returns or what happens after submission. It does not mention the multisig workflow or that this is the execution step after proposing. The parameter descriptions supply some context, but overall the description is too sparse for a tool with many siblings and no annotations.
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 parameter descriptions are detailed: they specify the format (base64 VersionedTransaction), source (/build call), and behavior (do not submit yourself; lastValidBlockHeight). The main description adds nothing about parameters but also does not detract. 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 'Submit the signed propose-transaction tx' clearly states the action and resource. The verb 'submit' and object 'signed propose-transaction tx' make the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like solknife_multisig_execute_execute or solknife_multisig_approve_execute, which also submit signed transactions but for different steps.
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. The parameter descriptions hint that the signed transaction comes from a /build call, but the main description fails to mention prerequisites or relationships to build tools. With many sibling execute tools, this omission reduces the agent's ability to choose correctly.
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.