Full stake.link wallet position summary.
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": {
"address": "<address>"
},
"name": "sdl_get_positions"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Ethereum wallet address. |
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. It implies a read-only summary via 'get' and 'summary,' but does not disclose authentication needs, return format, limitations, or any other behavioral trait beyond the broad output category.
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 a single, front-loaded phrase with no wasted words. It is concise, though it is arguably too terse to provide structural guidance for invocation.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify what the summary contains and how it is returned. It does not, leaving the agent with only a vague indication of the response scope.
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 has 100% description coverage for the sole parameter, defining 'address' as an Ethereum wallet address. The description adds no additional meaning or formatting guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific resource and scope: 'Full stake.link wallet position summary.' An agent can infer it returns position data for a wallet, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like sdl_get_portfolio or sdl_get_resdl_positions.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools covering portfolios, positions, and staking summaries, the description provides no selection context 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.