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 mentions 'confirmation status' but does not detail what that entails (e.g., success/failure states, network latency, error handling, or rate limits). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operational behavior.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose efficiently, making it easy to parse and understand immediately without unnecessary elaboration.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the return value includes (e.g., confirmation details, error responses) or address potential behavioral aspects like network dependencies or failure modes, leaving the agent with insufficient context for robust use.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'signature' parameter fully documented. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's comprehensive coverage.

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 ('Check') and resource ('confirmation status of a Solana transaction'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_transaction_history (historical data) and simulate_transaction (pre-execution analysis). It precisely communicates the tool's function without redundancy.

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 for verifying transaction confirmation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_transaction_history or simulate_transaction. No guidance is provided on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context inferred rather than defined.

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