pair_ledger_solana

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

Adds context beyond annotations: explains it reads device address at a derivation path and caches it, and that it's idempotent (multiple calls with same accountIndex re-cache). Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and non-destructive, so description reinforces and adds detail.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose, requirements, technical details, usage, and error info. Slightly verbose but all sentences add value; no 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?

Completely covers prerequisites, usage pattern, error conditions, and cross-references related tools (get_ledger_status, prepare_solana_*, send_transaction). No output schema needed for such a simple tool; description is sufficient.

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 only parameter, accountIndex, already has a thorough description in the schema (100% coverage). The description repeats the derivation path and default value, and adds context about multiple calls. It adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 pairs a Ledger device for Solana signing via USB HID. It specifies the derivation path and distinguishes from siblings like pair_ledger_tron by mentioning shared USB path and from WalletConnect alternatives by stating they don't work for Solana.

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?

Explicit requirements (Ledger plugged, unlocked, Solana app open) and usage pattern: call once per session per account before prepare_solana_* or send_transaction. Also explains calling multiple times for additional accounts and error handling when conditions fail.

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