Dritan MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose error conditions (e.g., invalid RPC URL), performance traits (e.g., network latency), or output format (e.g., numeric balance in lamports/SOL).

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 with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get SOL balance') and directly specifies the target and source without redundancy.

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 tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on parameter usage, error handling, return values, and operational context, leaving significant gaps for agent 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter details. It mentions 'wallet address' and 'Solana RPC endpoint' but doesn't explain walletPath (e.g., file path vs. public key) or rpcUrl (e.g., format, default values). Two parameters remain largely undocumented.

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 specific action ('Get SOL balance'), target resource ('for a local wallet address'), and source ('from a Solana RPC endpoint'). It distinguishes from siblings like wallet_create_local (creation) and wallet_get_address (address retrieval) by focusing exclusively on balance checking.

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 (e.g., needing a valid wallet file), exclusions (e.g., not for non-local addresses), or comparisons to other tools like token_get_price for token valuation.

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