trigger_voteVote for the best Super Representative (SR) with the highest APY to earn voting rewards. The platform automatically selects the SR with the best return. Requires VoteWitness permission granted to the platform. Voting rewards accumulate and can be claimed automatically if auto-claim is enabled. Requires API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| poolAddress | No | Pool address to vote from. If omitted, uses your first registered pool. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses permission requirements, auto-selection behavior, and auto-claim of rewards, but does not mention whether the operation is irreversible, replaces previous votes, or incurs transaction costs.
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?
Three sentences with no fluff, though slightly redundant ('Vote' and 'automatically selects' overlap). Front-loaded purpose and concise overall.
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?
Covers prerequisites, outcome, and auto-claim behavior, but lacks expected return value or post-voting state. Without an output schema, a more explicit description of what the tool returns would improve completeness.
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%, so the parameter is already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, relying on the schema's explanation of poolAddress and its default behavior.
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?
Clearly states it votes for the best Super Representative with highest APY to earn rewards. The verb 'Vote' and resource 'SR' are specific, and this tool is distinct from all siblings (no other voting tool exists).
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?
Implied usage when you want to vote for an SR, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations. It does provide prerequisites (VoteWitness permission, API key), which gives some contextual guidance.
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.