get_staking_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It compensates partially by listing the specific return fields (slot, outputHash, totalStake, snapshotAda), providing transparency into what data is retrieved. However, it omits safety profile confirmation, auth requirements, or operational traits like idempotency that would be expected for a read operation without annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every element serves a purpose: the verb establishes the operation, 'INDY staking manager state' identifies the resource, and the parenthetical list specifies the return 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description appropriately compensates by enumerating the returned fields (slot, outputHash, totalStake, snapshotAda). It adequately covers a zero-parameter read operation, though it could be improved by briefly defining what these fields represent (e.g., what snapshotAda means).

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, triggering the baseline score of 4. The description correctly omits parameter discussion since none exist, requiring no additional semantic clarification 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('INDY staking manager state'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_staking_positions or adjust_staking_position by targeting the global manager state rather than individual positions. The parenthetical field list (slot, outputHash, totalStake, snapshotAda) further clarifies the specific data returned.

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 the many sibling staking tools (e.g., get_staking_positions_by_owner vs. this global manager state). It lacks explicit prerequisites, filtering caveats, or alternative recommendations.

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