Skip to main content
Glama

Blueprint Agentic Staking (Solentic)

by io.github.blueprint-infrastructure

Check Stake Accounts

check_stake_accounts
Read-onlyIdempotent

List all stake accounts delegated to Blueprint for a wallet. Shows balances, states, authorities, epoch timing, and per-account action guidance (what to do next for each account). Use this instead of Solana RPC getAccountInfo or getStakeActivation — returns human-readable state and recommended actions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
walletAddressYesWallet address to check for Blueprint stake accounts

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds what the output includes, such as balances, states, authorities, epoch timing, and per-account action guidance, which gives useful context beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences that state the purpose, the output fields, and the alternative to use. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant words or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains the return content. With one well-documented parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (walletAddress) with a clear description. The tool description only echoes 'for a wallet' and does not add syntax, formatting, or edge-case behavior beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and defines the resource precisely ('all stake accounts delegated to Blueprint for a wallet'). It enumerates the returned data (balances, states, authorities, epoch timing, action guidance), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like check_balance and get_staking_summary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly instructs to use this tool instead of Solana RPC getAccountInfo or getStakeActivation, providing a direct alternative and the reason (human-readable state and recommended actions). This is strong, actionable guidance for when to choose this tool.

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

All Blueprint Agentic Staking (Solentic) toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between the 'stake' and 'create_stake_transaction' tools, as well as between 'unstake' and 'create_unstake_transaction', and 'withdraw' and 'withdraw_stake', which could cause confusion. However, descriptions clearly differentiate between automated and advanced manual use cases, mitigating ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, with clear and descriptive naming (e.g., check_balance, get_staking_summary, register_webhook). There are no deviations in style or convention, making the set highly predictable and readable.

Tool Count3/5

With 26 tools, the count is borderline high for the staking domain, potentially overwhelming for agents. While many tools provide specialized functionality, some could be consolidated (e.g., multiple transaction-building tools), making the set feel slightly heavy but still within a reasonable scope.

Completeness5/5

The toolset comprehensively covers the staking lifecycle, including address checking, balance queries, staking, unstaking, withdrawing, monitoring, simulation, and verification. There are no obvious gaps, and tools provide clear guidance and alternatives, ensuring agents can handle all necessary operations without dead ends.

Resources