solanaGetAssetProof

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose ('on-chain verification'), but lacks details on side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or data volume. The description is too minimal to adequately guide an agent on usage 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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action, resource, and purpose. No wasted words.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the structure of the Merkle proof, how it should be used for on-chain verification, or any relevant edge cases. The tool requires additional context for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description does not add additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides, such as clarifying network format or asset ID format.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('Merkle proof for a compressed Solana asset'), and the purpose ('needed for on-chain verification'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like solanaGetAsset (which likely retrieves asset details) and solanaGetAssetProofs (plural).

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 on-chain verification but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives such as solanaGetAssetProofs or other asset query tools. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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