Model Context Protocol Server for Solana Client

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation ('returns information'), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, rate limits, network latency considerations, or what happens if the cluster is unavailable. The return format description is helpful but insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve a clear purpose: the first states what the tool does, the second describes the return format. There's no wasted text. It could be slightly more front-loaded if the return format was integrated into the first sentence, but it's still 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?

For a parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It explains what information is returned and the format, but doesn't address behavioral aspects (auth, errors, performance) or differentiate from similar tools. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, more completeness would be expected for a cluster information tool in a complex blockchain context.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It does add value by specifying the return format ('Cluster nodes: {nodes}'), which provides semantic context beyond what the schema could convey for a parameterless tool.

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: 'Returns information about all the nodes participating in the cluster.' This specifies the verb ('returns information') and resource ('nodes participating in the cluster'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_vote_accounts' or 'get_leader_schedule' which might also provide cluster-related information, preventing a perfect score.

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. With many sibling tools that retrieve various types of cluster/network information (e.g., get_vote_accounts, get_leader_schedule, get_slot_leader), there's no indication of what specific 'node information' this provides or when it's the appropriate choice. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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