get_can_delegated_max_size

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about the unit (Sun) and Stake 2.0, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as default network handling or edge cases like zero balance.

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 a single sentence with the action front-loaded, no redundant wording, and every phrase serves a purpose.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description clearly conveys the return value (maximum amount in Sun) and the key inputs. It lacks specifics about the response format, but for this simple query the description is largely 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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter comments for address, network, and resource. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 retrieves the maximum delegatable TRX amount (in Sun) for a given address and resource type under Stake 2.0. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource, and is easily distinguished from siblings like 'delegate_resource' or 'get_delegated_resource_v2'.

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 usage when needing to know delegation capacity before delegating, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No direct mention of sibling tools or when-not conditions.

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