Solentic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context about return values (balance in SOL/lamports, stake readiness, next steps) and scope ('any Solana wallet'), which enhances behavioral understanding beyond 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes all necessary output details without redundancy. Every part earns its place by clarifying scope and return values.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It adds useful output context (balance formats, stake readiness, next steps), though it could briefly mention error cases or limitations for full completeness.

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 'walletAddress' fully documented in the schema as 'Solana wallet address (base58 public key)'. The description doesn't add further parameter details beyond implying it's for 'any Solana wallet', so it meets 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 specific action ('Check the SOL balance'), target resource ('any Solana wallet'), and output details ('Returns balance in SOL and lamports, whether the wallet has enough to stake, and suggested next steps'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_staking_summary' or 'check_stake_accounts' by focusing solely on wallet 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 implies usage context by specifying 'any Solana wallet' and mentioning stake-related outputs, suggesting it's for balance checking before staking operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'check_stake_accounts' for existing stake details or 'get_staking_summary' for broader staking status.

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