tool_stake_deposit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It notes that stake can be slashed, adding behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other traits such as whether deposits are additive, idempotent, or require specific auth. The description gives some transparency but lacks depth for a mutation tool.

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 concise, with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by tier explanation and a warning about slashing. The structured Args section is efficient. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., updated stake, confirmation). While the tool is simple, the lack of return value information leaves a gap. Sibling tools provide some context, but completeness for a deposit operation could be improved.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning to all three parameters: agent_id (e.g., DID, UUID, name), amount (>0), and currency (default: REP). This fully compensates for the missing schema documentation, providing essential usage guidance.

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 action: 'Deposit stake for an agent as a trust proof.' It explains the purpose (increasing trust tier) and distinguishes from sibling tools like slash, verify, and leaderboard by focusing on the deposit action. The verb 'deposit' and resource 'stake' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides context (higher stake = higher tier) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like slash or verify. It implies usage for increasing trust but does not state exclusions or prerequisites. The information about tiers and slashing is helpful but not directive.

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