Preview the exact lamport fee the given Solana wallet would pay for its next paid validation (fees escalate with consecutive failures).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallet_address | Yes | Solana wallet address. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate an important behavioral trait ('fees escalate with consecutive failures') and the word 'Preview' strongly suggests a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no state changes are made, nor does it describe any potential error conditions or constraints, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence contains the essential verb, object, target, and a critical clarifying parenthetical. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
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 tool with only one required parameter and no output schema, the description is functionally complete: it names what is returned (exact lamport fee), the subject (wallet's next paid validation), and the relevant fee-escalation context. The only minor gap is that the concept of 'paid validation' could use a bit more definition, but overall it is sufficient for a simple preview tool.
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 single parameter wallet_address is already fully described in the schema as 'Solana wallet address.' The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond mentioning that this is the wallet whose fee is being previewed. Because schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; no further compensation is required.
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 verb ('Preview'), its target resource (exact lamport fee for a given Solana wallet), and the specific context (next paid validation with fee escalation). It is a specific and well-defined purpose, but it does not explicitly name or contrast itself against the sibling tool get_pricing, so it misses the highest level of sibling differentiation.
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 the primary use case (finding the fee for a wallet's next paid validation), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as get_pricing, or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or scenario-based instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinct: stats, pricing, profiles, fee previews, feature requests, scoring, and Storelayer actions each have separate purposes. The two Storelayer tools could be confused since both reference the same 57-widget catalog, but one is explicitly read-only recommendation and the other is activation/install. Pricing-related tools are also separated between general manifest and wallet-specific fee preview.
The majority of tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_network_stats, get_pricing, list_profiles, preview_fee, request_feature, score_text. The two storelayer_* tools break the pattern by leading with a domain prefix and one uses a noun-noun form rather than verb_noun. Overall it is readable but not fully consistent.
Eight tools is a reasonable count for a server that combines scoring, pricing, profile lookup, and Storelayer integration. No tool feels redundant or unnecessary. The breadth of domains is wide, but each tool contributes to a distinct function.
The tool surface covers the main informational and free actions: stats, pricing, profile listing, fee preview, scoring, and feature requests. However, paid validation, progress reports, bundle purchases, and Storelayer verification/removal are only described as external endpoints or multi-step flows rather than exposed as MCP tools. These gaps are workable but may require agents to leave the MCP server for key monetized capabilities.