Validate a Solana mint address (free)

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

With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility. It states 'free local' validation, implying no network calls or costs, but does not describe what happens on invalid input (e.g., error or boolean return) or any other behavioral effects.

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 two sentences (16 words) with no redundancy. Every word serves a purpose: 'free local', 'validate', 'single Solana mint', and the use-case hint.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers the purpose and when to use it. It could mention the return type or behavior on invalid addresses, but the core intent is clear.

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%, and the schema already describes the parameter as a base58 Solana mint address. The description adds 'base58 address-format validation' but does not enhance meaning 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 validates a Solana mint address using base58 format validation. It specifies the verb ('validate') and resource ('Solana mint address'), and the 'free local' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_honeypot or check_deployer which perform more complex analysis.

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 advises using the tool to avoid paying on a malformed mint, providing a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like scan_honeypot for deeper checks.

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