get_staking_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so well: it reveals that staked SUI is omitted from get_balance, that the tool surfaces these otherwise-hidden positions, and that the result ties the wallet to a specific validator. It could add details about errors or pagination, but the key non-obvious behavior is disclosed.

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 two focused sentences: the first states the tool's core behavior, the second provides the critical usage context. There is no filler or repetition, and every sentence 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?

For a low-complexity tool with only one required parameter and a fully documented schema, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, why the tool matters, and how it relates to get_balance. No output schema exists, so the return-value details in the description are especially valuable and sufficient.

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%, so parameters are already well documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, keeping this at the baseline score.

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 a specific operation ('Get a wallet's staking positions'), a concrete resource ('every StakedSui object'), and the exact data returned (validator pool, principal, activation epoch). It also differentiates from get_balance by explicitly noting that staked SUI does not appear in balance results.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool ('during an investigation or a net-worth check') and explains the gap with get_balance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention overlapping alternatives such as get_defi_positions, so it lacks a full exclusion list.

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