Skip to main content
Glama

land_stake_dec_overall

Retrieve the overall DEC staking figure for a specified Splinterlands player account. Returns a single numeric value representing the account's total staked DEC.

Instructions

Get the single DEC staking figure the upstream returns for one account, as GET /land/stake/dec/overall returns it. A successful response is {status, data}, where data is a bare JSON number rather than an object or an array; this server returns it exactly as received and does not convert, round, scale or combine it, and a change in that wire type would be reported as a malformed response rather than converted silently. What the number counts, and over what scope, is not stated by the response and is not claimed here. This route does not enforce its declared-required player parameter: a call that omits it was measured to answer HTTP 200 with the number zero, the same zero observed for an unscoped call; whether that equals a real account with nothing staked was not tested, so this tool refuses a call with no player rather than return a plausible zero that describes nobody. A name that matches no account was measured to answer with the same kind of figure as a real account, so an answer from this tool establishes neither that an account exists nor that it does not. A zero returned for a named account is a successful answer and is not reported as no result. The per-region tool lists this account's staking rows separately; this server does not add those rows up, does not compare their total with this figure, and does not derive either from the other.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
playerNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.2
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv0.0.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly: response shape, bare-number data type, no rounding/scaling/conversion, malformed-response behavior, omitted-player behavior, nonexistent-account behavior, and zero-as-successful-result. It also discloses the tool's own refusal behavior rather than returning a misleading zero. This is exemplary transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long, but every sentence adds necessary caveats that the annotations and output schema do not provide. It front-loads the core purpose and response shape before diving into edge cases. Given the number of non-obvious behaviors it must warn about, it is appropriately sized and well ordered.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the sole source of operational context. It covers the response envelope, data type, malformed-response handling, missing-player refusal, nonexistent-account ambiguity, valid zero results, and the distinction from per-region data. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains that player identifies an account, that omitting player is refused by this tool despite producing a 200/zero upstream, and that a nonexistent player still yields the same figure type. The only minor wrinkle is calling player 'declared-required' when the schema lists no required fields, but the practical instruction is unambiguous.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the single DEC staking figure the upstream returns for one account.' It clearly identifies the tool's passthrough nature and explicitly contrasts it with the per-region tool, which lists staking rows separately. This gives an agent enough to distinguish it from related staking siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: it returns one overall DEC staking figure, and it explicitly notes that the per-region tool lists rows separately and that this server does not sum them. It does not name the sibling tool directly or give an explicit 'use X instead' rule, but the comparison is concrete enough to guide selection.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools