solana_contract_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful trait: the 75-credit cost per action and the caveat that actual credits are returned in response headers. But it omits read-only confirmation, auth requirements, rate limits, and error behavior, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

The purpose and action are front-loaded with bulleted, scannable structure. The closing boilerplate about credits being indicative is somewhat verbose and could be trimmed, but it does not obscure the core 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 a 4-parameter, 3-required tool with no output schema, the description covers action, networks, and cost but says nothing about what 'token details' are returned. With no output schema to lean on, the return shape is left entirely to inference, leaving a real gap.

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%, so the schema already documents action, network, contractAddress, and context. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema supplies, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get Solana contract token details,' with the action 'get-token-details-by-contract-address' making the operation concrete. The 'Solana' scoping implicitly separates it from the sibling evm_contract_data, though it never names that sibling explicitly. Clear enough that an agent knows what it retrieves.

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?

Networks (mainnet, devnet) and the single available action are listed, which implicitly bounds when the tool applies. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite notes, and no routing advice versus the evm_contract_data sibling. 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.