get_pool_delegationsGet active delegations from your pools. Shows who received energy/bandwidth and when delegations expire.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| poolAddress | No | Filter by specific pool address. If not provided, shows all your pools. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description clarifies the data returned, but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects or mention permissions, rate limits, or other operational caveats. This is acceptable for a simple read tool but could be more explicit.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word adds value.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and what it returns (active delegations, recipients, expiration). It is complete for its complexity.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description in the schema fully explains the optional poolAddress filter. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level details, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('active delegations from your pools') and adds detail about what is shown (who received energy/bandwidth and expiration). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_available_resources or get_pool_stats.
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 clearly contexts when to use it (for viewing active delegations from your pools), but it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives. The context is evident from the wording, though no sibling comparison is provided.
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 have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists: get_prices and get_market_overview both provide pricing info, and get_available_resources, get_pool_delegations, and get_onchain_status all relate to resource status. Descriptions clarify these distinctions adequately.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., get_balance, register_pool, configure_auto_selling). Minor inconsistency: 'broadcast_signed_permission_tx' uses the abbreviation 'tx' while 'broadcast_transaction' uses the full word 'transaction'.
27 tools is excessive for a server with this scope, exceeding the 25-tool threshold. Several tools could be consolidated (e.g., get_prices and get_market_overview, or the various resource-status getters). The high count makes the tool surface harder to navigate.
The server covers the core domain well: registration, balance management, pool registration and configuration, energy purchase, order tracking, swap, and voting. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool for configuring auto actions (stake/claim) or cancelling orders, but these do not severely hinder core workflows.