Get staking summary

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: staked SUI is invisible to get_balance, staking ties the wallet to a specific validator, and the return contents are summarized. No contradiction with annotations 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The return-value summary is front-loaded, and the usage rationale follows naturally. Every sentence contributes distinct information.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description states the output shape, the fields returned, the total principal, and when calling is worthwhile. Combined with full schema coverage and the safety annotations, nothing essential is missing for a read-only tool.

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 address and network are already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which lands at the baseline.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource ('Get a wallet's staking positions') and enumerates exactly what the tool returns: every StakedSui object with validator pool, principal, activation epoch, and total principal. It also explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_balance, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

It names the conditions to call (investigation or net-worth check) and the reason: staked SUI does NOT appear in get_balance, so a wallet can look nearly empty while holding a large staked position. This explicitly gives when-to-use and cites an alternative, providing clear routing guidance.

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