sui-mcp-server

request_add_stake

Stake SUI tokens to a validator by providing wallet, validator address, and amount to earn staking rewards.

Instructions

Stake SUI with a validator. Amount is in SUI.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "wallet": "<wallet>",
      "validatorAddress": "<validatorAddress>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "request_add_stake"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`wallet`	Yes	Wallet name
`validatorAddress`	Yes	Validator address
`amount`	Yes	Amount of SUI to stake

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.3May 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation and that amount is in SUI, but does not disclose whether it is a write/mutation, whether it requires prior setup, what side effects occur, or whether it returns a transaction result. The description is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise with two short sentences, no wasted words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include necessary behavioral context while remaining concise. Still, it effectively conveys the core purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., transaction response) or what happens after staking. It also fails to mention that this is a mutation requiring transaction approval. The description is too sparse for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'Amount is in SUI', but the schema already says 'Amount of SUI to stake', adding negligible new meaning. The description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Stake SUI with a validator', using a specific verb and resource. It naturally distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'request_withdraw_stake' (unstake), which is the only direct alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 (e.g., wallet must exist, validator must be active), and no mention of when not to use it. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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

Deploy Server