Sol MCP — Solana Token Risk & Signals

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining the combined verdict interpretation ('low risk + strong buy = best setup for entry'), which helps the agent understand the output's meaning. Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint, non-destructive) and idempotency, so the bar is lower, but this extra insight into result interpretation is beneficial.

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 front-loaded with the core functionality in the first sentence, followed by a concise interpretation of results. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 (combining two metrics), rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool returns and how to interpret it, but lacks details on output format or error handling, which could be helpful for an agent.

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 fully documents the 'mint' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Get both risk score AND momentum signal for a token in one call.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resources ('risk score' and 'momentum signal'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_token_risk' and 'get_momentum_signal' by combining both in a single operation.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when needing both risk and momentum data together. It implies an alternative (using separate tools for each metric) but doesn't explicitly name them or state when not to use this tool, such as when only one metric is needed.

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