Get staking parameters & supply (P-Chain)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the specific data fields returned (current supply, total stake, etc.), which goes beyond what annotations alone convey. No contradiction exists.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The purpose and use-case are stated in the first sentence, and the usage guidance is in the second. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with a single well-documented parameter, the description is complete. It lists all the data categories returned, and the annotations cover the safety/profile aspects. No additional behavioral or syntactic details are needed.

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 only parameter, 'network', has a description in the schema ('Primary network: mainnet or fuji'), an enum, and a default. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. This meets the baseline for fully documented parameters.

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 returns P-Chain staking economics and enumerates specific data fields (min validator/delegator stake, min/max stake durations, current supply, total stake). It uses the verb 'Return' and the resource 'P-Chain staking economics', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like avax_pchain_get_validators (validator list) and avax_get_balance (balances).

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 explicitly gives use cases: 'Use when designing validator economics or answering "how much AVAX do I need to validate?"' This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the use-case framing is sufficient for an agent to route correctly.

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