Solentic

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining the zero-custody pattern (unsigned transaction returned for client-side signing) and providing suggested donation amounts, which helps the agent understand behavioral traits like transaction handling and typical usage.

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 in the first sentence, followed by additional context and suggestions, with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value, such as explaining the transaction pattern and providing donation examples.

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 (transaction building with specific patterns) and lack of output schema, the description is mostly complete but could benefit from more details on return values or error handling. It adequately covers purpose, usage, and behavioral context, though output behavior is not fully described.

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 parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameter semantics like wallet address format or SOL amount specifics. Baseline score of 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 specific action ('Build an unsigned SOL transfer') and target ('to support Blueprint development'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'submit_transaction' or 'check_balance' by focusing on donation functionality. It explicitly mentions the zero-custody pattern, which further clarifies its unique purpose.

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—for donating to Blueprint—and implies usage by suggesting donation amounts. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as distinguishing from general transaction tools.

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