calculate_optimal_stake

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that this is a read-only calculation (as opposed to actually staking/sending CHZ), nor what 'optimal' optimizes for, nor the return format. For a no-annotation tool this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is appropriately sized. It is terse rather than padded, though it could have used the space to add routing or behavioral context.

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 100% parameter coverage and no output schema, the parameter side is complete. But with no annotations and no explanation of what the calculation optimizes or returns, the definition is only minimally sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents amount, duration, and riskTolerance (including the enum and defaults). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('optimal stake distribution across validators'), so the agent can tell it is an analysis/routing tool rather than a data fetch. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like compare_validators, calculate_staking_rewards, or get_validator_risks, so an agent must infer which validator-analysis tool applies.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It never says whether this should follow get_validator_risks or compare_validators, nor when to prefer it over calculate_staking_rewards, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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