Fetch all open INDY staking positions to view staked INDY and track active stakes.
Get all open INDY staking positions
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_staking_positions"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by specifying 'open' (status filter) and 'INDY' (token specificity), but lacks disclosure on pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what constitutes an 'open' versus closed position.
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 concise at six words with no redundancy. It front-loads the verb and key qualifiers ('all', 'open', 'INDY'), making efficient use of limited space.
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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is minimally adequate for a zero-parameter read operation but has clear gaps. It does not hint at the return structure (e.g., list of positions with IDs, amounts), pagination behavior, or data freshness expectations.
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 contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4. The description appropriately does not fabricate parameters, and the schema coverage is vacuously complete at 100%.
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 action ('Get') and resource ('all open INDY staking positions'), specifying the scope (global 'all') and status filter ('open'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like `get_staking_positions_by_owner` or `get_staking_position_by_address` to clarify when to use this global variant.
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 filtering alternatives (e.g., `get_staking_positions_by_owner`). It does not mention prerequisites, authentication requirements, or performance considerations for retrieving 'all' positions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.