solana_address_latest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the 14-day data window, the cursor-pagination contract (feed nextStartingAfter back as startingAfter), supported networks, and per-action credit costs with a caveat that actual spend is in response headers. It does not address auth/permission requirements or rate limits, but the read-only query nature is clear from context.

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?

Content is front-loaded (scope + pagination mechanics first, then actions, networks, credits) and the bullet structure is scannable. The credit table is slightly verbose but is clearly delineated and relevant to cost-aware invocation.

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 7-parameter, multi-action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important ground: action semantics, networks, pagination, and cost. Minor gaps remain around limit/sort interactions and response shape, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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, but the description adds real meaning beyond the enum labels by explaining what each action returns (SOL balance, transactions, SPL tokens held) and by specifying the exact pagination round-trip for startingAfter. It leaves limit, sortingOrder, and context unexplained, but those are fully documented in the schema.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Query latest Solana address data') scoped to a 14-day window and enumerates the three actions, so an agent knows exactly what class of data it returns. It names the chain (Solana), which implicitly separates it from the evm/utxo/xrp/kaspa siblings, but it never explicitly says 'use this for Solana addresses instead of evm_address_latest'.

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 action list and the 14-day window imply when each mode applies, and the pagination note tells the agent how to iterate, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to sibling tools. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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