staking_stakeSolayer

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

No annotations provided. The description mentions 'Re-staking protocol' but lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as risks, lock-up periods, reversibility, fees, or required permissions. The tool likely executes a write operation, but no safety details are given.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences. It is concise without extraneous words, but could be more structured with bullet points or a clearer separation of purpose and behavior.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose but lacks information on return values (transaction signature?), prerequisites (minimum amount?), or whether the staking is immediate. No output schema exists, so the description should fill this gap but does not.

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 detailed descriptions for both parameters ('amount' in lamports, 'wallet' as base58 key). The description adds no additional context beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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), resource (SOL), output (sSOL), and protocol (Solayer). It distinguishes from sibling staking tools like 'staking_stakeSOL' by mentioning 'Re-staking protocol with additional yield', though not explicitly differentiating from 'staking_stakeJupSOL'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'staking_stakeSOL' or 'staking_stakeJupSOL'. The mention of 'additional yield' hints at a use case but does not provide clear when/when-not instructions.

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