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 a connection status string, but lacks details on error handling, latency, side effects, or authentication needs. For a health-check tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a moderate gap, as it doesn't fully describe operational behavior beyond the basic output.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the purpose clearly. The second sentence explains the return format, which is useful. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently conveys essential information in two sentences.

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 could be improved. It covers the purpose and return format, but lacks context on when to use it, error scenarios, or integration with sibling tools. For a simple health-check, this is adequate but has clear gaps in guidance and behavioral details.

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 is no need for parameter documentation in the description. The baseline for such cases is 4, as the description appropriately omits parameter details, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output.

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 as a 'Health check to verify if the client is connected,' which is a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('client connection'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that mostly retrieve blockchain data or perform transactions, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is not tautological with the name 'is_connected' and is straightforward.

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 implies usage for checking connection status, likely as a preliminary step before other operations, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts. This leaves some ambiguity, though the health-check nature suggests general applicability.

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