get_solana_signatures

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what format the signatures are returned in. The description only states what the tool does at a high level without behavioral details.

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 with a clarifying parenthetical. Every word serves a purpose - the main clause states the core function while the parenthetical adds important context about what 'signatures' means in this context. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (just signatures, but in what format?), doesn't mention behavioral aspects like rate limits or permissions, and provides no guidance on usage context despite many similar sibling tools. The description is too minimal given the tool's complexity and lack of supporting structured data.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 ('Get transaction signatures') and resource ('for a Solana address'), with parenthetical clarification ('transaction history') that distinguishes it from other Solana tools like get_solana_account_info or get_solana_transaction. It uses precise terminology that matches the tool's function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (including other Solana-specific tools like get_solana_transaction and get_solana_account_info), there's no indication of when this signature-focused tool is preferred over those alternatives or general transaction tools.

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