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 mentions the return format ('Vote accounts information in the format "Vote accounts: {accounts}"'), which adds some context, but it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or how the data is structured (e.g., pagination, error handling). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 core purpose stated clearly in the first sentence. The second sentence provides return format details, which is useful. There's no wasted text, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 complexity (simple read operation with no parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool returns and the format, but it doesn't fully compensate for missing behavioral details (e.g., safety, performance). For a no-param tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation. No additional value is required, but it doesn't go beyond what's already covered by 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's purpose: 'Returns the account info and associated stake for all the voting accounts in the current bank.' It specifies the verb ('returns'), resource ('account info and associated stake'), and scope ('all the voting accounts in the current bank'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_account_info' or 'get_largest_accounts', which prevents 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 like 'get_account_info' and 'get_largest_accounts' that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This lack of usage guidelines leaves the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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