tool_stake_verify

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explicitly states it is a read-only verification returning balance, trust tier, slash history, and trust score. This clearly indicates no destructive side effects. However, it omits authentication requirements or rate limits.

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?

Description is concise (4 lines), front-loaded with purpose, and includes structured Args block. Every sentence adds value with no extraneous text.

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?

The tool is simple with 1 parameter. Description explains return values (balance, trust tier, etc.) compensating for lack of output schema. However, it could mention that verification is typically a prerequisite for other stake operations, but that overlaps with usage guidelines.

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?

Only one parameter (agent_id). Description adds 'to look up' which is minimal beyond the schema's title and type. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but does not provide rich semantic detail like expected format or example.

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 verb 'Verify' and the resource 'agent's stake status and trust level'. It distinguishes from siblings like tool_slash_stake or tool_stake_deposit by focusing on verification rather than mutation or deposits.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies it is for checking status before actions like disputes or slashes, but does not mention alternatives or exclusions. Adequate but lacks proactive guidance.

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