staking_stakeSOL

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions creating a stake account and delegating, but omits costs, risks, reversibility, or requirements. This is insufficient for a financial operation.

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?

One sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Stake'. No unnecessary words; every word adds value. Perfectly concise.

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?

Given the complexity of staking (financial transaction), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover error conditions, return values, or post-operation behavior, which are critical for an AI agent to safely invoke this 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% with descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description adds the context of 'native SOL' but does not explain the optional validator parameter or clarify that amount is in lamports (already in schema). Adds minimal extra meaning.

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 native SOL'), the target ('to a validator'), and the process ('Creates a stake account and delegates'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like staking_getStakeAccounts (read) and staking_stakeJupSOL (different token).

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 for native SOL staking but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like staking_stakeSolayer. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., sufficient SOL for rent) or exclusions.

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