preview_solana_send

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds useful behavioral details: it overwrites the previous pin on re-call, and send_transaction will throw an error without prior preview. It also explains the underpinning reason for splitting blockhash pinning from prepare. However, the description goes beyond annotations with these details.

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 relatively long (~150 words) but every sentence serves a purpose. It is front-loaded with the core action, then explains constraints, re-call behavior, and error condition. Could be slightly more terse but is appropriate for the complexity of the operation.

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 has only one parameter, no output schema, and annotations cover read/idempotent properties, the description is fully complete. It explains the entire workflow, why splitting is needed, re-call behavior, and error conditions. No gaps for an agent to misinterpret.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'handle', and the schema description already explains its purpose. The tool description adds additional context about re-callability and the pinning behavior, which enriches understanding beyond the schema's minimal definition.

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 is Solana-only, and defines its specific verb 'finalize' with the resource 'prepared Solana tx'. It explains the purpose: fetching a fresh blockhash, serializing message bytes, and computing the Message Hash. This distinctly separates it from siblings like send_transaction and the prepare_solana_* series.

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 when to use: 'MUST be called between prepare_solana_* and send_transaction', explains the reason (blockhash expiry), and mentions re-callability if the user pauses. No ambiguity about the correct placement in the sequence.

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