blockchain_fees_solana

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden, and it does well: it explains the compute-unit cost model, per-action credit costs, and explicitly notes credits are indicative and actual spend appears in response headers. It omits whether the calls mutate anything (they appear read-only) and any auth or rate-limit 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?

Front-loaded one-line statement of purpose followed by scannable action and credit bullets; nothing is redundant. The credit table is somewhat heavy for a description body, though it is structured and actionable information.

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 an 11-parameter, 4-action tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all actions, their purposes, and cost metadata, which is enough for correct invocation. It stops short of describing response shape or per-action parameter requirements, though the schema covers the latter at full coverage.

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% and every parameter (amount, sender, recipient, tokenStandard, programId, accounts, instructionData, etc.) is documented in the schema, including which action requires it. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific resource ('fee recommendations and compute-unit estimation') and enumerates the four concrete actions with one-line purposes each. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from EVM-based siblings by noting Solana uses compute units rather than gas, and the name makes its chain scope unambiguous against Tezos/UTXO/XRP siblings.

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?

Each action line implies when it applies (native SOL transfer vs SPL token transfer vs arbitrary program invocation vs fee lookup), giving an agent clear routing within the tool. It does not, however, state when a caller should NOT use an action (e.g., preconditions for program-invocation estimation) or compare against non-EVM siblings beyond the gas/compute-unit remark.

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