chainpeek: SOL balance of a Solana address

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: input validation failures are 422 and RPC failures are 503, neither charged; typical latency 0.2-1 s; price USD 0.002 with 10 free reads per IP per day; and a prompt-injection warning about treating returned text as untrusted. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs and that readOnlyHint/idempotentHint cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then sibling routing, then returns, errors, latency, pricing and safety. It is dense and earns most of its sentences, but wastes one on a verbatim duplicate: "an address that was never funded reads 0. Never-funded addresses read 0."

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 single-parameter read with an output schema, the description supplies everything beyond the structured fields: return shape (lamports, sol, slot), the zero-balance edge case, network/commitment, error semantics and cost. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% – the single `address` parameter already documents base58, 32-44 characters, with the pattern and length bounds. The description adds only an indirect hint ("a malformed input is a 422") rather than new parameter detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get the SOL balance of a Solana address") and immediately names the sibling that covers the adjacent case: "For SPL tokens use get_solana_token_balances." An agent can route between the two native-SOL vs SPL-token tools without inspecting either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool and the condition selecting it (SPL tokens), and pins the network/commitment context (Solana mainnet, confirmed commitment), which tells the agent when the result is authoritative. It lacks a stated when-not-to-use beyond the token case, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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