transactions_data_solana

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add genuinely useful non-schema context — a 90-credit cost, the caveat that credits are indicative, and that actual spend is in response headers — but it omits error behavior (e.g. unknown hash) and any rate-limit or auth detail.

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 purpose before network list and the credits boilerplate. The credits disclaimer is somewhat boilerplate-heavy but earns its place by setting cost expectations for a paid call.

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 should say more about the returned transaction shape and error cases. It covers purpose, supported networks, and cost adequately, but leaves the response contract to inference.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the network enum and the hash meaning, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it; 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 transaction details by transaction hash (signature)', and the Solana suffix distinguishes it from the sibling chain variants (utxo, evm, xrp, kaspa). Clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those 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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only routing cue is the tool name's chain suffix; nothing tells the agent to prefer this over transactions_data_evm for a Solana/EVM ambiguity, nor any prerequisite or failure conditions.

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