Skip to main content
Glama

Blueprint Agentic Staking (Solentic)

by io.github.blueprint-infrastructure

Withdraw SOL (one-shot)

withdraw

Withdraw SOL from a deactivated stake account in a single call. Builds the transaction, signs it, and submits it. Funds are returned to your wallet. Use check_withdraw_ready first to confirm the account is ready. Omit amountSol to withdraw the full balance. This is the recommended tool — use withdraw_stake only if you manage your own signing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountSolNoAmount to withdraw in SOL (omit to withdraw full balance)
secretKeyYesYour base58-encoded secret key — used in-memory for signing only, never stored
walletAddressYesYour Solana wallet address (withdraw authority)
stakeAccountAddressYesDeactivated stake account to withdraw from

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description explains the transaction flow ('Builds the transaction, signs it, and submits it') and outcome ('Funds are returned to your wallet'), which is beyond the annotation hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It also clarifies the optional amount behavior ('Omit amountSol to withdraw the full balance'). No contradiction with 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?

Six short sentences, each with a distinct purpose: scope, process, outcome, prerequisite, optional param, and alternative. No fluff or redundancy; front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

For a non-trivial signing/submission tool, the description addresses the essential workflow, prerequisites, and alternatives. Lacks explicit error/failure discussion, but given the check_withdraw_ready prerequisite and schema richness, it is sufficiently complete.

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 covers all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), including the optional amountSol. The description's note about omitting amountSol duplicates the schema's own description, adding no new parameter semantics beyond the baseline.

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 opens with 'Withdraw SOL from a deactivated stake account in a single call' – a clear verb+resource+scope. It further differentiates from the sibling withdraw_stake by noting it is the recommended tool and that withdraw_stake is only for manual signing.

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 instructs 'Use check_withdraw_ready first to confirm the account is ready' and provides a direct alternative: 'use withdraw_stake only if you manage your own signing.' This gives both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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