Get staking lock status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds value by detailing the required finance scope and the specific return states (none, active, expiring-soon). It also clarifies that this tool is not for managing locks, which is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradiction 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then adding scope requirements and a management note. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

This simple tool has no output schema and no parameters, so the description must cover the return information itself. It does this by listing the possible statuses and the time threshold, plus the scope prerequisite. Given the low complexity, the description is complete and leaves no important gaps.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema provides complete coverage, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description appropriately omits parameter details since there are none, and it does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 states the tool provides a read-only view of the account's staking lock, enumerating possible states (none, active, expiring-soon) with a specific threshold (under 24 hours). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_wallet_status, which target different aspects of account state.

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 the tool is for checking lock status and explicitly states that locks are managed in the dashboard, not here, providing an exclusion. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or provide a when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use comparison, so it stops short of a 5.

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