staking_stakeJupSOL

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a write/mutation operation and mentions key features (instant liquidity, auto-compounding). However, it does not disclose potential prerequisites, fees, or the need for wallet authority.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey the core purpose and benefits with no wasted words. Information is front-loaded.

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 staking operation with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and expected outcome. It provides enough context to be useful, though could mention the resulting token type more explicitly.

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 100%, with both 'amount' and 'wallet' described. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Stake SOL'), the result ('for jupSOL'), and key benefits ('Instant liquidity, auto-compounding'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling staking tools like staking_stakeSOL and staking_unstakeJupSOL.

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 implies usage context through the mention of liquid staking and benefits, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., native staking or Solayer). The benefits provide indirect guidance.

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