Compare stLINK demand against direct Chainlink staking demand over a selected range.
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_staking_channels"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| range | No | Lookback range. |
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 does not state that this is a read-only analytic comparison, does not describe data sources or update cadence, and gives no return-shape expectations, leaving key behavioral context absent.
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 sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the comparison and its scope.
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 one-parameter analytic tool with no output schema, the description identifies the comparison target and range but omits what the returned comparison contains or how to interpret it. It is minimally adequate but leaves useful context for an agent to infer.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the sole parameter has an enum with labels, so the schema already documents the range options. The description adds only the vague phrase 'over a selected range' and does not expand on ranges or their meaning, matching the baseline for well-covered schemas.
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 gives a specific verb ('Compare') and precise resources ('stLINK demand' vs 'direct Chainlink staking demand') over a range. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as sdl_get_chainlink_staking or sdl_get_competitive_staking, so an agent must infer which comparison tool to use.
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 states what is compared and that a range is selected, but gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing this over related staking tools, and no prerequisites. The agent gets no explicit routing help.
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.