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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns version information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, error conditions, or whether it requires specific permissions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence clearly stating the purpose. The second sentence adds return format details, which is useful. There's no wasted text, and it's structured efficiently, though it could be slightly more polished (e.g., integrating the return format into the main sentence).

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains what the tool returns but lacks behavioral context (e.g., performance or error handling). Without annotations or an output schema, the description should ideally provide more details on the return value's structure or usage constraints, but it's minimally adequate for a simple read operation.

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 the schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given for zero-parameter tools, as the description focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter clutter.

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 the current solana versions running on the node.' It specifies the verb ('returns') and resource ('current solana versions'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_identity' or 'get_cluster_nodes', which might also return node-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest 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. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_identity' for node identity or 'get_cluster_nodes' for node details), there's no help in distinguishing usage scenarios. This leaves the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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