x402_staking_claim

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the costs involved ('PAID $0.01 USDC', 'flat fee 0.002 ALGO') and clarifies that the user must sign the transaction, meaning the tool generates a transaction rather than executing it directly. This is important behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 extremely terse, packing multiple pieces of information into a compact string. Every element (fee, transaction group, signing instruction) has purpose, but the syntax is cryptic with colons and technical abbreviations, making it less approachable. It is concise but could be clearer in structure.

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 claim operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential workflow (sign and submit) and costs. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., must have staked first), what the claim returns, or potential failure modes. It is adequate for a technical audience but incomplete for full autonomous use.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (sender, stakingId, updatedApr). The description mentions updatedApr within the claimTokens call, adding slight context about its role in the transaction, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 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 identifies the tool as a staking claim operation via the phrase 'staking/claim' and the applause call 'claimTokens'. It clearly implies claiming tokens from staking, distinguishing from sibling tools like x402_lp_farm_claim and x402_staking_unstake. However, it does not explicitly state 'claim staking rewards' as a complete phrase, leaving minor ambiguity.

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 clear usage context: 'Sign with your own wallet, then call the submit tool.' This tells the agent that the tool only prepares a transaction and that a subsequent submission step is required. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the workflow guidance is valuable.

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