Skip to main content
Glama

Blueprint Agentic Staking (Solentic)

by io.github.blueprint-infrastructure

Create Stake Transaction

create_stake_transaction

Advanced: Build an unsigned stake transaction for local signing. Most agents should use the stake tool instead, which handles signing and submission automatically. This tool is for agents that manage their own signing infrastructure.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountSolYesAmount of SOL to stake (minimum 0.00228288 SOL for rent exemption)
walletAddressYesSolana wallet address (base58 public key) that will fund and control the stake

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's mention of 'unsigned' and 'local signing' adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not detail what happens after building (e.g., return value or need for submission), but the core behavior is transparent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with 'Advanced' and a clear action. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool is advanced, has a simple 2-parameter schema, and no output schema. The description adequately explains purpose, usage context, and differentiation from the simpler `stake` tool. It could mention the need for subsequent submission, but 'local signing' implies this and the sibling submit_transaction exists. Overall, complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (walletAddress and amountSol) already well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline for high schema coverage applies.

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 states a specific action: 'Build an unsigned stake transaction for local signing.' It clearly identifies the resource (stake transaction) and distinguishes from the `stake` tool that handles signing and submission. This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation from siblings.

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?

Explicitly directs most agents to use the `stake` tool instead, and states this tool is for agents managing their own signing infrastructure. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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