getSolStakingQuotaDetails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It indicates a read-only operation through 'retrieve' and lists the data fields, but does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a simple get, this is adequate but not rich.

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 but somewhat redundant, repeating the tool name in 'Get SOL Staking Quota API allows users to retrieve'. It could be more concise, but it is not overly verbose.

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 tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides useful context by enumerating the returned data (limits, minimums, fees, availability). It lacks usage scenarios or exclusions but is largely complete for a simple retrieval tool.

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 single parameter recvWindow is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 user's current SOL staking quota and lists specific data included (remaining limits, minimum amounts, fees, availability). This distinguishes it from staking account or history tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use it (when needing SOL staking quota details) but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling staking tools. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the general use case.

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