Lends Quote Stake

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output depends on current pool state, signaling the quote is time-sensitive and may not be a guaranteed final rate. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single 12-word sentence with the key action and resource front-loaded. No filler, no redundant restatement of the tool name, and every word contributes meaning.

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 one-parameter read-only quote with no output schema, it states what is returned ('sleUSD shares') and the input semantics. It stops short of describing the output shape or precision, which would matter more because no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter semantics. It identifies amount as a 'raw leUSD amount', which clarifies the input is a base-unit quantity rather than a display amount, though it does not specify decimal precision or rounding behavior.

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?

States a specific verb ('Preview'), a specific resource ('sleUSD shares'), and the conversion basis ('raw leUSD amount using current pool state'). This clearly distinguishes it from mutation siblings like lends_prepare_stake and state reads like lends_get_staking_state.

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 word 'Preview' and reference to 'current pool state' imply it is the quote/read path before staking, but the description never names an alternative or says when not to use it. It does not explicitly route to lends_prepare_stake for execution, so usage is only implied.

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