create_unstake_transactionAdvanced: Build an unsigned unstake transaction for local signing. Most agents should use the unstake tool instead, which handles signing and submission automatically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| walletAddress | Yes | Wallet address that is the stake authority | |
| stakeAccountAddress | Yes | Stake account address to deactivate |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by specifying the transaction is 'unsigned' and intended for 'local signing', which implies it does not submit or sign automatically. This gives agents a clearer behavioral model than annotations alone, though it doesn't elaborate on potential side effects like network queries.
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 exceptionally concise—two sentences that immediately state the core purpose and provide usage contrast. It front-loads the key information without any filler, making it easy for an agent to quickly 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?
Given no output schema, the description does enough by indicating the output is an unsigned transaction for local signing. It also mentions the primary alternative. However, it could be slightly more explicit about what the agent should do with the transaction (e.g., submit via a separate tool), but for a tool focused on construction, this is adequate.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, with clear descriptions ('Wallet address that is the stake authority' and 'Stake account address to deactivate'). The tool description does not add extra meaning or usage details for the parameters, so it appropriately relies on the schema. Baseline of 3 applies.
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 purpose with a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('unsigned unstake transaction'), and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling `unstake` tool by noting it's for local signing. This goes beyond a generic restatement and effectively differentiates it from alternatives.
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 explicitly provides usage guidance: it labels the tool as 'Advanced' and tells most agents to use the `unstake` tool instead, which handles signing and submission automatically. This names the alternative and clarifies when to use this tool (local signing) versus when not to.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.