Blinks Validate Actions Json

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

Contradicts annotations: description says 'operation class read' but annotations declare readOnlyHint: false, indicating potential write capability. This inconsistency severely undermines agent understanding of tool behavior. Description adds no further behavioral context beyond this contradiction.

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?

Description contains some redundancy (e.g., 'SAP MCP context: Protocol blinks; operation class read' is technical jargon that may not add value for all agents) and could be more concise. It is front-loaded but includes unnecessary details.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is mostly adequate but the behavioral contradiction leaves a gap. It covers usage context but not all edge cases or behavioral expectations.

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?

Single parameter 'domain' with 100% schema coverage. Description adds useful example ('jupiter.exchange') and clarifies it specifies the domain to check for actions.json, which supplements the schema definition.

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 tool validates a domain's actions.json file, checking Solana Actions spec compliance. It distinguishes from sibling blinks tools like buildActionUrl or getAction by focusing on validation.

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?

Description provides context ('Use for Solana Actions and Blinks metadata fetch, validation, and POST action preparation. Preview and validate actions before signing or submitting transactions') but lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool guidance. Sibling tools exist for other actions like building URLs or executing actions, but no exclusions are mentioned.

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