get_stakes

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read operation but lacks disclosure on potential pagination, historical vs active stakes, or any limitations. For a simple getter, it is minimally adequate.

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, complete sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous content.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It specifies the input and what is returned. However, 'all staking positions' could be clarified regarding scope (e.g., active vs pending). Still sufficient for a basic query 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 input schema already describes the address parameter as 'Staker address' (100% coverage). The description's phrase 'for an address' adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'get' and resource 'staking positions' with a clear scope 'for an address'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'request_add_stake' and 'request_withdraw_stake' which involve mutations, and from 'get_balance' which retrieves coin 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of context such as whether the address must be valid or have stakes. It simply states the action without usage instructions.

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