Solentic

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description aligns with by implying a write operation ('Submit'). It adds context beyond annotations by specifying the return values ('transaction signature and explorer URL'), though it doesn't detail potential failures, rate limits, or network behavior. 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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first defines the purpose and usage context, the second specifies return values. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently structured for quick comprehension.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it covers purpose, usage guidelines, and return values. However, it lacks details on error handling or confirmation behavior, which could be useful given the high-stakes nature of transaction submission.

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 'signedTransaction' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by implying the parameter is a signed version of outputs from sibling tools, but doesn't provide additional format or validation details beyond what the schema already covers.

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 ('Submit a signed transaction to Solana') and resource ('signed transaction'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_stake_transaction (which creates unsigned transactions) and verify_transaction (which verifies without submitting). The verb 'submit' is precise and indicates finalization of a transaction.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use after signing an unsigned transaction from create_stake_transaction, create_unstake_transaction, or withdraw_stake'), providing clear prerequisites and distinguishing it from sibling tools that prepare or verify transactions rather than submit them.

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