Staking Stake S O L

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). Description adds that it creates a stake account and delegates, and warns about confirming terms. Provides behavioral context beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

First sentence immediately states the core action. Paragraph is relatively concise, though some phrases like 'SAP MCP context' and 'operation class write' are slightly redundant given the later guidance. Could be tightened but still efficient.

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?

Covers main action, usage guidance, and important preconditions. Does not detail error handling or edge cases, but given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is fairly complete for a staking write tool.

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% (all parameters documented). Description adds value by emphasizing confirmation of 'validator or provider, amount, lockup/unstake terms, and account ownership' before writes, giving real-world context to the amount and validator parameters.

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?

Clearly states the tool stakes native SOL to a validator, creates a stake account, and delegates. Distinguishes from sibling staking tools (e.g., JupSOL, Solayer) by specifying 'SOL and liquid staking flows' and referencing SAP vs AgentKit staking tools.

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?

Explicitly says to use for SOL and liquid staking flows, and provides alternative tool groups: 'Use SAP staking tools for SAP protocol stake accounts; use AgentKit staking tools for external staking protocols.' Does not explicitly state when not to use, but guidance is clear enough.

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