refinore-mcp

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 states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what happens with invalid wallet addresses. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that queries financial data.

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, efficient sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and specific data points retrieved. Every word serves a purpose with zero wasted text, making it optimally concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of financial staking data and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It lists what information is retrieved but doesn't describe the return format, data structure, units, or potential limitations. For a tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves too much ambiguity.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'wallet_address' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline for adequate but unremarkable coverage.

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 staking information') and resource ('for a wallet'), with specific details about what information is retrieved (stORE balance, current APR, and pending staking rewards). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_balances' or 'get_account_info', which might provide overlapping information.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_balances' or 'get_account_info' that might serve similar purposes in this staking context.

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