Skip to main content
Glama

stake.link Agents (stakedotlink.money)

sdl_build_wrap_stlink

Build an unsigned stLINK to wstLINK wrap transaction.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "amount": "<amount>",
      "from": "<from>"
    },
    "name": "sdl_build_wrap_stlink"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fromYesSigner wallet address.
amountYesstLINK amount in human-readable form.
simulateNoRun Tenderly simulation. Default: true.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely important trait: the transaction is unsigned, implying the caller must sign and submit it. However, it says nothing about simulation behavior (the schema's `simulate` default of true), gas handling, or failure modes, leaving substantial behavioral gaps.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler or redundancy. Every word (build, unsigned, direction, transaction) carries information.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For an unsigned-transaction builder with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify what the caller receives (raw tx vs. calldata), the chain context, and signing/broadcast expectations. None of that is present, so an agent cannot fully determine how to use the result.

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%, so the schema already documents `from`, `amount`, and `simulate`. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that—no note on units vs. raw values, decimals, or what simulation returns—so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Build'), the exact resource ('unsigned stLINK to wstLINK wrap transaction'), and the direction of the conversion, which inherently distinguishes it from the reverse-direction sibling sdl_build_unwrap_wstlink. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so it stops short of full sibling routing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., wallet must hold stLINK, approval requirements), and no mention that the output is meant to be signed and broadcast by the caller. The agent must infer all usage context from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources