ponzu_farm_stake

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: NFT minting, automatic approval handling, and early unstake penalty. However, it does not mention side effects like gas costs or return values, leaving some gaps.

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?

Three sentences, all essential and free of redundancy. Information is front-loaded with the primary action, followed by critical details (NFT mint, approval, penalty). No waste.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers key behavioral aspects (stake, NFT, penalty) and prerequisites. Missing return value info, but otherwise sufficiently complete for a 2-parameter stake function.

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 clear parameter descriptions (e.g., example for lpAmount, farmAddress). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so a 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 LP tokens in a Ponzu farm') and adds unique details about minting an NFT on first stake and early unstake penalty, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ponzu_farm_unstake.

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 staking LP tokens but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context of approval and penalty is helpful but not directive.

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