Request Solana transaction approval

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses that transactions are simulated and queued pending explicit user approval, and that asciiExplanation must be a plain-ASCII risk explanation. This adds behavioral context beyond readOnlyHint/idempotentHint flags, though it does not clarify post-approval submission behavior.

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, front-loaded with action, no filler. The second sentence adds a critical constraint without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 params, 2 enums, no output schema), the description covers core function and the critical parameter but omits expected return values or behavior after approval (e.g., sign vs sign-and-submit).

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?

With schema description coverage at 29%, the description compensates by emphasizing asciiExplanation requirements (ASCII-only, content requirements). However, other parameters like mode, network, and expectedSigner are left to schema enums, limiting added semantics.

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 uses specific verbs 'simulate and queue' and identifies the resource as a serialized Solana transaction for explicit approval via Wallet Standard. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by network (Solana) and action (request approval).

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 implies usage for Solana transaction approvals but does not explicitly contrast with sibling alternatives like request_evm_transaction or get_transaction_request. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, only the implied network-specific context.

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