Calculates projected staking rewards for a CHZ amount over a chosen number of days, helping users estimate potential returns before committing tokens.
Calculate staking rewards projection
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Staking duration in days | |
| amount | Yes | Amount to stake (in CHZ) | |
| validatorAddress | No | Validator to stake with (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden but says almost nothing. It does not clarify that this is a pure read-only projection (no transaction sent), whether it uses live validator APY or a fixed rate, or how the optional validatorAddress changes the result — all material for a staking calculation.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. The brevity borders on under-specification rather than excess, but nothing needs to be cut.
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 3-parameter calculation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It should at minimum indicate what the projection depends on and that it returns a computed estimate rather than executing a stake.
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 all three parameters documented (days, amount in CHZ, optional validatorAddress), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic detail such as default behavior (30 days) or the effect of omitting a validator.
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?
"Calculate staking rewards projection" does state a clear verb (calculate) and resource (staking rewards projection), so the core purpose is legible. However, it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings such as calculate_optimal_stake, get_pool_apy, or compare_validators, leaving an agent to guess which calculation 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 guidance, no prerequisites, and does not point to any alternative sibling. An agent gets no signal about whether this is a preferred tool over calculate_optimal_stake or get_pool_apy.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.