distribute_staking_rewards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the return format (CBOR hex unsigned transaction) and permissionless access. However, it omits mutation details (whether collector UTxOs are consumed), fee implications, or idempotency characteristics that would help an agent predict side effects.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: action definition, operational context, and return value specification. Information is front-loaded with the core verb, and each sentence provides distinct, non-redundant information essential for tool invocation.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description adequately compensates by specifying the CBOR hex return format and signing requirements. For a blockchain transaction tool, it could be improved by mentioning fee responsibilities or transaction validity periods, but it covers the critical gaps.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds domain context by mapping 'collectorTxHashes' to 'collector UTxOs' and implying the address parameter relates to staking positions, but does not add syntax constraints, validation rules, or format details beyond the schema.

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 specific action ('Distribute collected ADA rewards'), the source ('collector UTxOs'), and destination ('staking positions'). It distinguishes itself from sibling staking tools by framing this as a 'protocol maintenance operation' rather than a user position adjustment.

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?

It effectively signals the permissionless nature ('anyone can call') and critical output handling requirements ('unsigned transaction... for client-side signing'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'get_collector_utxos' or how to obtain the collectorTxHashes parameter values.

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