getStakingInfo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' plus 'state' strongly implies a non-mutating read operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm there are no side effects, permission requirements, or special failure cases.

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 entire description is one compact, front-loaded sentence with a colon-separated list of outputs. Every word adds information and there is no filler.

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?

For a low-complexity, single-parameter read tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, the scope, and the returned fields. Lacking only explicit non-mutation confirmation and units for holding duration, both minor for this simple case.

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 already documents the sole address parameter to 100% coverage. The description adds no new meaning about the parameter beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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-resource pair ('Get stKSKD vault state') and enumerates the exact data returned, so an agent can identify what this tool does. It does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like getPosition, but the phrase 'for a wallet' and the listed staking-specific fields are sufficiently distinguishing.

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 wording implies a read-only query for a wallet's staking status, which is a clear use case. However, it never states when to choose this over likely alternatives (e.g., getPosition or getUserRewards) or any exclusions.

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