Sol MCP — Solana Token Risk & Signals

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context about what the tool returns (performance stats, recent trades) and Sol's trading strategy (pump.fun graduating tokens, risk + momentum), which helps the agent understand the data's nature beyond the safety profile indicated by annotations.

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 purpose, followed by specific metrics, context about Sol's trading, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what data is returned, the trading strategy, and when to use it. However, it doesn't detail output format or potential limitations (e.g., data freshness), leaving minor gaps.

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 parameter 'recent_count' fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'recent closed trades' but doesn't add semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as how trades are selected or formatted. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 Sol's live trading performance stats and recent closed trades' with specific metrics (win rate, total PnL, ROI, recent trade outcomes). It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning 'get_graduation_signals for trade ideas' as a different use case.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Useful for evaluating signal quality before using get_graduation_signals for trade ideas.' This clearly states when to use this tool (evaluation) versus when to use an alternative (trade ideas), with a named sibling tool mentioned.

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