x402_staking_unstake

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the cost ($0.01 USDC), the flat fee (0.003 ALGO), the transactional atomicity (1-txn group), and the critical fact that this tool requires external signing and a separate submit step. It does not explain side effects or reversibility, but these are notable disclosures.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the most important fact (cost) and packs in fee, transaction group, and workflow. The phrase 'staking/unstake:' is slightly awkward and redundant with the tool name, but there is no wasted 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?

For a transaction-building tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: cost, fee, atomicity, protocol to invoke, and the necessary follow-up submit step. It omits details like what `stakingId` refers to or what happens after successful submission, but is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly within the broader workflow.

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 schema already covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the app-call order (`unstakeTokens(unstakeAmount, updatedApr)`) but does not clarify the semantics of `sender`, `stakingId`, or the precise meaning of `updatedApr` beyond what the terse schema descriptions already provide.

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 identifies the action as an unstake operation via an application call (`unstakeTokens`) and specifically ties it to 'staking', distinguishing it from LP farm variants. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like `x402_lp_farm_unstake` or state the exact resource being unstaked, which prevents a perfect score.

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 only usage guidance is the workflow: 'Sign with your own wallet, then call the submit tool.' This explains the sequence but not when to choose this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites such as holding an active staking position.

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