get_staking_positions_by_owner

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies read-only access, the description fails to confirm idempotency, disclose return value structure, or explain error cases (e.g., invalid owner formats, empty results).

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?

Single, dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with parenthetical elaboration on input formats. No redundant or wasted language—every word serves the description's purpose.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the basic invocation contract. However, lacking annotations and return value documentation, it omits important operational context that would help an agent handle responses and errors appropriately.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description parenthetically repeats the schema's explanation of acceptable input formats (payment key hashes or bech32 addresses) but adds no additional semantic depth, syntax examples, or validation rules beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (Get), resource (INDY staking positions), and filtering mechanism (for specific owners), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like get_staking_positions (all positions) and adjust/close_staking_position (mutations).

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 clarifies acceptable input formats (payment key hashes or bech32 addresses), but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like get_staking_positions or get_staking_position_by_address, nor does it mention prerequisites or array size limits.

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