get_staking_policyRead the current Autopilot policy for a wallet (or null if none). Shows keepLiquidSol, minSweepSol, paused, nonce, and the last epoch a sweep was delivered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| walletAddress | Yes | Wallet address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, providing safety context. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying return fields (keepLiquidSol, minSweepSol, paused, nonce, last sweep epoch) and the 'null if none' edge case, which is useful behavioral detail.
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 verb and resource, and every word contributes meaning. It efficiently communicates the purpose, null-case behavior, and the specific fields returned without unnecessary filler.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter, good annotations, and a clear return field list, the description is nearly complete. It could optionally mention that the wallet may not exist, but the openWorldHint and 'null if none' cover that implicitly, so no major gaps remain.
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 already covers the single parameter 'walletAddress' with a description ('Wallet address') at 100% coverage. The description reinforces that the policy is per-wallet but does not add new parameter-related semantics, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ('Read') and resource ('Autopilot policy for a wallet'), clearly stating the tool's function. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like set_staking_policy and delete_staking_policy by focusing on reading the current policy, and mentions the null return case for no 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 for retrieving the current Autopilot staking policy for a wallet, and the read-only nature is clear. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives like get_staking_summary or when not to use it, leaving the guidance to inference.
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.