Lends Prepare Request Unstake

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description's 'Construct ... transaction' implies an offline build operation and adds the sleUSD unstake-request scope, but it discloses no further behavioral traits such as side effects, chain interaction, or return format. Given the strong annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 with no filler, and it front-loads the action and resource. It is concise but very sparse, which prevents a 5 because it omits important contextual detail while remaining short.

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?

There is no output schema and the description does not state what the tool returns, such as a transaction payload, or how this request fits into the unstake lifecycle with prepare_complete_unstake and cancel_expired_unstake. The required 'shares' parameter is also undefined, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the required 'shares' parameter. It never mentions shares, amounts, units, or how the value maps to the unstake request. The parameter is only documented by its name and numeric pattern, leaving its meaning to the agent's inference.

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, 'Construct', and names the exact resource: an 'sleUSD unstake-request transaction.' The phrase 'unstake-request' helps distinguish this from sibling tools like prepare_complete_unstake and cancel_expired_unstake, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain that this creates a pending unstake request before completing or canceling it, nor does it contrast with prepare_stake, prepare_complete_unstake, or related tools. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the terse description.

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