preview_solana_send

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

The description discloses that the tool modifies state by pinning the handle, but the annotation readOnlyHint=true contradicts this. Per the scoring rule, a contradiction earns a score of 1.

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 detailed but well-structured, front-loading the purpose and providing necessary context without extraneous content. Slightly verbose but each sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully covers return values (UnsignedSolanaTx, messageBase64, ledger Message Hash, CHECKS PERFORMED), error handling, and workflow dependencies. No gaps remain.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about re-callability and workflow, but the parameter description in the schema already conveys the necessary meaning. No significant extra value.

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 finalizes a prepared Solana transaction for signing, specifies the actions (fetching blockhash, serializing, computing hash), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like prepare_solana_* and send_transaction by positioning it as an intermediate step.

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?

Explicitly states that the tool MUST be called between prepare_solana_* and send_transaction, explains why due to blockhash expiry, and notes that it is re-callable. Also warns that send_transaction will error if called without a prior preview.

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