Build a raw transaction

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

With no annotations, description fully discloses behavior: returns an unsigned, base64-encoded transaction, does not touch private keys, nothing is broadcast. Details the complete workflow and security implications. No contradictions.

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 paragraph but front-loaded with purpose and well-structured. It conveys essential information efficiently, though slightly longer than minimal. Every sentence adds value.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is comprehensive: explains the return format (unsignedTx), steps to complete action, and security warning. No gaps.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters, but the description adds context: action is forwarded as path segment, params as JSON body. This goes beyond schema, though schema already provides basic descriptions.

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 it is a 'generic escape hatch' for building unsigned Solana transactions for any AgentFund action, lists examples, and explicitly contrasts with dedicated sibling tools like create_project, contribute, and vote. This provides specific verb+resource differentiation.

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?

Describes when to use (need direct control over action name/params) and when not to use (use dedicated tools). Also provides explicit warnings: 'Never send a private key to this MCP server or the REST API'. Clear usage boundaries.

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