Kaskad Protocol MCP Server

stakeKSKD

Stake KSKD tokens into the stKSKD vault at 1:1 to gain governance eligibility as a supplier or borrower. Requires MCP_WALLET_KEY.

Instructions

Stake KSKD tokens into the stKSKD vault (1:1). Grants governance eligibility (isEligibleSupplier / isEligibleBorrower). Requires MCP_WALLET_KEY.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "stakeKSKD"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`amount`	Yes	Amount of KSKD to stake (human units, e.g. 100 = 100 KSKD)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses useful behavioral context: the 1:1 exchange rate, the governance effect, and the required wallet key. It does not describe return values or reversal behavior, but for a one-parameter staking action this is a moderate gap rather than a severe one.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: action and rate, then outcome, then prerequisite. Every sentence adds distinct information and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, exchange rate, resulting eligibility, and the required authentication condition. It omits return-value or lockup details, but the sibling tools like unstakeKSKD and getStakingInfo partially mitigate that need.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already fully documents the only parameter, amount, including human-units example and meaning. The description's 1:1 ratio adds context around the amount but does not introduce new parameter constraints or syntax, so the baseline schema-driven score is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Stake'), a specific resource ('KSKD tokens into the stKSKD vault'), and a key rate detail (1:1). It also names the governance outcome, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like unstakeKSKD or supply.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly implies when to use this tool: to gain governance eligibility through isEligibleSupplier/isEligibleBorrower. It also provides a prerequisite, MCP_WALLET_KEY, which helps an agent know whether it can call the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server