get_delegated_resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the read-only query nature, such as the Stake 2.0 versioning, but does not discuss response format, pagination, or any side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is zero extraneous content.

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?

For a simple read-only query with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It states the core query semantics and the Stake 2.0 context. The main gap is not clarifying when to use this vs. get_delegated_resource_v2, and no mention of return value specifics (though no output schema exists to mandate that).

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%, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'Delegator address', 'Recipient address', 'Network name'). The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 verb 'Query' and the resource 'amount of resources delegated from one account to another', and adds the context 'Stake 2.0' which helps distinguish it from other delegation tooling. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely named sibling get_delegated_resource_v2, so it falls short of a 5.

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 used to query delegated resource amounts, and the 'Stake 2.0' context gives some situational framing. Yet there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_delegated_resource_v2 or get_delegated_resource_index, nor are any exclusions mentioned.

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