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 describes the tool's function (simulation, error checking, fee estimation) but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, whether it consumes resources, or what the output looks like (e.g., success/failure indicators). For a tool with no annotations, this is adequate but leaves gaps in 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 front-loads the key action ('simulate a Solana transaction') and purpose ('check for errors and estimate fees before sending'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or waste.

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 complexity (simulation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the core purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., whether it's read-only, error formats, or fee estimation accuracy), which are important for an agent to use it effectively.

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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter ('transaction' as a Base64-encoded string). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('simulate', 'check for errors', 'estimate fees') and resource ('Solana transaction'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'send_transaction' (which actually sends) and 'get_transaction_status' (which retrieves status). It explicitly indicates this is for pre-send validation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'before sending' a transaction, providing clear context for its use. It distinguishes from alternatives by implying this is for simulation only, not actual sending (contrasted with 'send_transaction'), and for error/fee estimation rather than status checking (contrasted with 'get_transaction_status').

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