Solafon MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it has rate limits, what authentication might be required, or what format the blockhash is returned in. The description is functional but lacks operational context.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the essential information without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes necessary context about Solana transactions. Every word earns its place in this compact description.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and why it's used. However, for a blockchain tool that likely returns time-sensitive data (blockhashes expire), more context about the return format, freshness, or typical usage patterns would be helpful, especially with no annotations to provide behavioral context.

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?

The tool has zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on the tool's purpose and context. No parameter information is needed or missing.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('latest blockhash'), and explicitly explains its purpose ('needed for building Solana transactions'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_transaction_history or get_transaction_status by focusing on a specific blockchain infrastructure element rather than transaction data.

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 usage context ('needed for building Solana transactions'), suggesting this tool should be used when preparing transactions. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (like which tools might require a blockhash vs. which don't).

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