solana_wallet_security_audit_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool is free and returns metadata, implying it is a safe read operation. However, it does not mention idempotency, authentication requirements, or any side effects, which are minor gaps for a metadata tool.

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 sentence, but it is somewhat long due to enumerating many anti-patterns. However, it front-loads the core purpose ('Return metadata for...') and the list is relevant. Every part earns its place, but brevity could be improved slightly.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool returns (metadata for a ruleset) and what the ruleset covers. It also notes that it is free. It might lack detail on the metadata format, but that is acceptable without an output schema.

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 tool has no parameters (schema is empty with 100% coverage). As per guidelines, baseline is 4 for zero parameters. The description adds no parameter info because none exists.

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 it returns metadata for a specific ruleset and enumerates what the ruleset catches. The verb 'Return metadata' is specific and the resource (ruleset) is clearly identified. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like solana_wallet_scan, but purpose is still clear.

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. It only describes what the tool returns, not any context for its use, such as prerequisites or comparison to other tools.

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