Staking Get Stake Accounts

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

Annotations clearly indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description's claim of 'operation class write' directly contradicts these annotations, making the tool's behavioral profile confusing. This is a serious inconsistency.

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 relatively short and front-loads the main purpose. However, it includes an unnecessary contradictory statement ('operation class write') and some tangential instructions about confirming terms before writes, which slightly reduces efficiency.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and scope. However, the contradiction regarding write operation and the lack of explanation about 'delegation status' or return format (though output schema may cover it) leave gaps.

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 single parameter 'wallet' has full schema coverage (100%). The description adds that the tool lists 'all stake accounts' and includes 'delegation status', which provides minor additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter description.

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 ('list') and the resource ('all stake accounts for a wallet') with specific output detail ('delegation status'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by instructing to use SAP staking tools for SAP protocol accounts and AgentKit staking tools for external protocols.

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 some usage context ('use for SOL and liquid staking flows') and pre-write checks, but it incorrectly labels the operation class as 'write' when annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This contradiction undermines guidance and could mislead agents into thinking the tool modifies state.

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