Chainlink staking state and stake.link share of that state.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "sdl_get_chainlink_staking"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about read-only nature, data freshness, caching, or what is returned. For a zero-arg getter the risk is low, but the description adds no behavioral context at all.
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?
It is a single short fragment with no waste, so it is concise. But brevity here reflects under-specification rather than tight structuring — there is no front-loaded statement of what the tool returns.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a one-line fragment, the agent has no picture of the return payload or its shape. For a data-retrieval tool this leaves the caller guessing about what 'staking state' and 'stake.link share' concretely contain.
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 tool takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. The description neither needs to nor fails to explain inputs.
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 names the resource ('Chainlink staking state') and a distinctive scope ('stake.link share of that state'), which helps separate it from siblings like sdl_get_competitive_staking. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb and 'state' is undefined, so an agent cannot tell what data actually comes back or how it differs from other Chainlink/staking endpoints.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative among the many sibling staking/Chainlink tools. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
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.