Solafon MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), potential rate limits, data freshness, error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 that efficiently communicates the core functionality without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and wastes no space on redundant or verbose explanations.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (e.g., price format, timestamp, error handling), nor does it address behavioral aspects like rate limits or data sources. Given the context of financial data retrieval, more completeness would be expected.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'mints' is fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not exceptional parameter documentation.

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 ('Get') and resource ('current USD prices for Solana tokens'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_token_list' or 'get_wallet_balance', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_token_list' (which might list tokens without prices) or 'get_wallet_balance' (which might include token values). There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate contexts for usage.

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