delete_staking_policyRemove a wallet's Autopilot policy. Sign EXACTLY this newline-separated message and pass the base58 signature: "solentic-autopilot-delete:v1\nwallet=\nnonce=". nonce must exceed the current policy nonce.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nonce | Yes | Strictly increasing replay guard | |
| signature | Yes | base58 Ed25519 signature over the canonical delete message | |
| walletAddress | Yes | Wallet address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'Remove a wallet's Autopilot policy', which is destructive, but the annotations declare destructiveHint: false, directly contradicting the described behavior. The signing and nonce details are useful, but the contradiction is a serious issue that fails to disclose the true destructive nature.
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 purpose, and includes essential technical details. It is concise, though the inlined signing message could be formatted more clearly.
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?
The description covers the core action and signing requirement but omits what happens on success (e.g., return value) and does not mention error cases. The annotation contradiction further undermines completeness for an AI agent.
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?
While schema descriptions cover all three parameters, the description adds the exact signing message format and the critical requirement that nonce must exceed the current policy nonce, providing semantic context beyond the schema.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a wallet's Autopilot policy'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_staking_policy and get_staking_policy.
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 implies usage through the verb 'Remove' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., policy must exist) or exclusions.
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.