decode_solana_txDecode a Solana transaction signature to inspect status, fees, compute units, parsed instructions, inner calls, and SOL/token balance changes.
Decode a Solana transaction signature: status, fee, compute units, parsed instructions + inner instructions with program names, SOL and token balance changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signature | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating what the decoded output includes: status, fee, compute units, parsed instructions, inner instructions, program names, and balance changes. It does not discuss error handling or rate limits, but it is transparent about the return content.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the operation and the decoded fields without 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?
There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the return values. It is nearly complete for a simple read-only decode tool, but it omits any note on the signature format or failure behavior, which would help an agent call it 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 description coverage is 0% and the only parameter, signature, is not described in the schema. The description repeats that it is a Solana transaction signature but adds no format details such as base58 encoding or where to obtain it, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (decode) and resource (Solana transaction signature), and lists the decoded output categories. This distinguishes it from sibling decode tools such as decode_calldata, decode_transaction, and decode_psbt by naming the chain and object type.
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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. An agent can infer that it is for Solana transaction signatures, but the description does not help choose it over sibling decode tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.