Sol MCP — Solana Token Risk & Signals

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

Annotations already provide safety and idempotency hints (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context by specifying the analysis method ('multi-window buy/sell ratio analysis') and the return format with confidence levels, which are not covered by annotations. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, method, and return values without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (financial analysis with a single parameter), annotations cover safety aspects, and the schema fully documents the input. However, there is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, which it does by listing the signal categories and confidence levels. It could be more complete by detailing the analysis windows or confidence thresholds, but it provides sufficient context for basic use.

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%, with the single parameter 'mint' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 with specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('buy/sell momentum signal for a Solana token'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the analysis method ('multi-window buy/sell ratio analysis'). It explicitly mentions the return values, which helps differentiate it from tools like 'get_token_risk' or 'get_full_analysis'.

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 obtaining momentum signals but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_graduation_signals' or 'get_full_analysis'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and description alone.

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