get_staking_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return content (all StakedSui objects with pool, principal, activation epoch) and the verb 'Get' implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state whether this is read-only, any permission requirements, or behavior when no staking exists.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded, no fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

While no output schema exists, the description summarizes the return values. For a simple two-parameter read tool, this is fairly complete, though it omits edge cases like empty staking or network behavior, but those are minor.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving staking positions for a wallet on Sui, listing specific output details (StakedSui objects, pool, principal, activation epoch). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_defi_positions or get_wallet_overview.

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 implies usage when staking information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_defi_positions or get_wallet_overview, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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