prepare_transactions_solana

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the behavior, and it does add value beyond the schema: it clarifies the output is unsigned with fee details, defines the post-call signing/broadcast path, and discloses per-action credit costs with the caveat that they are indicative and authoritative values appear in response headers. It omits auth/permission requirements and any rate-limit behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 with the core purpose and return shape, then structured as a scannable action list and credit table. Every element is useful, though the credit list plus the disclaimer paragraph is more text than the tool itself strictly requires.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description still tells the agent what comes back (unsigned transaction plus fee details) and the exact next call to make. Missing only peripheral details such as authentication needs or failure modes for a 9-parameter, two-action builder.

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; the description goes beyond it by mapping each action to its semantics (native SOL transfer vs SPL token transfer) and by associating credit costs with each action value. It still leaves parameter-level detail such as feePriority/fee semantics and base-unit formatting to 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?

States a concrete verb (build/prepare) and resource (unsigned Solana transactions) and enumerates its two actions, native-coins and spl-tokens. The chain name in both tool and description cleanly separates it from the six sibling prepare_transactions_* chain variants.

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?

Explicitly places the tool in a workflow: build unsigned, sign locally, then broadcast via the named sibling broadcast_signed_transaction. It does not, however, say when to choose native-coins vs spl-tokens beyond stating that one builds a SOL transfer and the other an SPL token transfer.

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