Donate to Blueprint

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by specifying 'unsigned' and 'zero-custody pattern,' clarifying that the tool builds a transaction without control over funds. No contradiction with 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?

Three concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, the second provides behavioral context, and the third adds helpful suggestions. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple 2-parameter tool without output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, behavioral context, and usage suggestions. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., base64 transaction), which could be inferred but is not explicit.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by providing suggested amounts (0.01, 0.1, 1 SOL) with labels (thank you, generous, patron), giving contextual meaning to the amountSol parameter beyond the schema's range constraints.

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 verb 'build' and the resource 'unsigned SOL transfer' with the explicit purpose 'to support Blueprint development.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools as the only donation-specific tool.

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 donating to Blueprint but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_stake_transaction or submit_transaction. No when-not or alternative tool references.

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