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 the action ('Send') which implies a write operation with network effects, but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether this is irreversible, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns a transaction ID, or handles errors. For a network submission tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool and front-loads the essential action. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity of sending blockchain transactions (a write operation with financial implications), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after sending (e.g., returns transaction hash, confirmation status), error conditions, or safety considerations. For this context, more behavioral and output information is needed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'signedTransaction' fully documented in the schema as 'Base64-encoded signed transaction'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details, validation requirements, or example values. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 action ('Send') and resource ('pre-signed Solana transaction to the network'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'simulate_transaction' by specifying actual network submission rather than simulation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other transaction-related tools beyond the name difference.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a signed transaction first), when not to use it (e.g., for testing vs. production), or direct comparisons to siblings like 'simulate_transaction' for testing before sending. The agent must infer usage context from tool names alone.

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