get_delegated_resource_v2

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable context: it specifies that the details include bandwidth and energy, and clarifies the Stake 2.0 scope. This goes beyond the generic safety hints, though it does not describe the return format or potential error cases.

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, focused sentence with no redundant information. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's 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?

For a read-only query with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's input scope (two addresses) and output domain (bandwidth and energy details). It could be more explicit about whether the response contains both quantities or a list of delegation records, but the current level is sufficient for basic usage.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters, including the default for 'network' and the Base58/hex format hints for addresses. The description text does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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's purpose: retrieving delegated resource details (bandwidth and energy) between two addresses under Stake 2.0. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('delegated resource details') and explicitly mentions the Stake 2.0 context, which differentiates it from older delegation tools like get_delegated_resource.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or conditions, nor does it reference sibling tools such as get_delegated_resource (v1) or get_delegated_resource_index, so an agent has no basis for choosing this over related options.

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