request_airdrop

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

The description mentions the max 2 SOL constraint, providing some behavioral insight beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose whether the request is idempotent, what happens on failure, or if any prerequisites exist (e.g., wallet must exist). With no annotations, more transparency would be beneficial.

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 description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple airdrop request with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, environment, and constraint. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no mention of idempotency or address validation), but these are not critical for typical usage.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds value by specifying the network context (devnet/testnet) not in the schema, but the max constraint is already present in the amountSol 'maximum' field. Overall, it adds marginal additional meaning.

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 clearly states the action (request SOL airdrop), the specific network (devnet/testnet), and a constraint (max 2 SOL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like transfer_sol, which sends existing SOL.

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 description implies use for development/testing environments but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like transfer_sol or other token operations. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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