Solafon MCP

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 describes the tool as a read operation ('Get'), which implies it's non-destructive and likely read-only, but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. The description adds basic context but lacks details on how the list is structured or any limitations.

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 front-loads the key action ('Get') and resource ('list of supported SPL tokens'), with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying what data is returned.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is complete enough for basic understanding. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or limitations, which could be helpful for an AI agent. It meets minimum viability but has gaps in transparency.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details beyond the schema, but this is appropriate given the lack of parameters. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the description adequately covers the tool's purpose without redundant information.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'list of supported SPL tokens', specifying the data returned includes 'mint addresses, symbols, and metadata'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_token_prices (which returns prices, not token lists) and get_transaction_history (which returns transaction data, not token metadata).

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 when token metadata is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_token_prices or other data-fetching tools. It provides clear context for retrieving token information but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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