get_solana_signatures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves transaction signatures but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, pagination (beyond the 'limit' parameter), or return format. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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: 'Get transaction signatures for a Solana address (transaction history)'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes clarifying context in parentheses. There's no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks behavioral details, usage guidelines, and output information. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it meets a basic threshold for a read-only query tool.

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, clearly documenting all parameters ('address', 'limit', 'network') with defaults and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as address format examples or network implications. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get transaction signatures for a Solana address (transaction history)'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('transaction signatures'), and target ('Solana address'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_solana_transaction' or 'search_cosmos_transactions', which would require a 5.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools (e.g., 'get_solana_transaction' for detailed transaction data or 'search_cosmos_transactions' for cross-chain queries) or specify use cases like checking transaction history versus balances. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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