Get account

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of returned data and hints at raw-vs-parsed output, but omits practical behavior such as what happens for non-existent accounts and the 100-address batch limit.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the return payload and followed by the routing cue. No filler, no repetition of the title, and every clause carries information.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers purpose and output fields but leaves parameter semantics (encoding, commitment, batch size) and missing-account behavior unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%: encoding and commitment enums have no documented semantics in the schema. The description's 'raw + parsed' phrase loosely maps to the encoding option but does not explain jsonParsed vs base64, commitment levels, or the batched addresses array, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('raw + parsed on-chain account state for any address') and enumerates the returned fields (lamports, owning program, executable flag, parsed data). This clearly separates it from transaction- and wallet-analytics siblings, though it never names an alternative to distinguish against.

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?

'Use this to tell a wallet from a PDA, a mint or a program' gives a genuine use case, so usage is implied rather than absent. However, there is no when-not guidance and no mention of siblings like solana_rpc or get_balances that could retrieve overlapping state.

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