Liquid staking pools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns APY, min stake, and active flag for pools. However, it does not mention data freshness, caching behavior, or whether the list is filtered (e.g., only active pools). For a simple read-only tool with no parameters, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 is a single concise sentence that front-loads the resource ('Tegro liquid-staking pools') and immediately lists the key data points. No wasted words; every part earns its place.

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 is fairly complete for a simple listing tool with no parameters, but it lacks explicit mention that it returns a list of all pools (implied by 'pools' plural) and does not clarify if filtering by active status is possible. Without an output schema, the agent might need more detail about the response structure.

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?

The input schema has no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying the output fields (APY, min stake, active flag), which is essential since the schema is empty. Given the 0-param baseline of 4, the description fulfills this role.

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 identifies the resource ('Tegro liquid-staking pools') and lists the key fields returned (APY, min stake, active flag). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', and the phrase 'and others' is vague. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'tegro_staking_rate' which likely returns a single rate.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as 'tegro_dex_pools' and 'tegro_staking_rate' exist, but the description does not clarify the intended use case or conditions for choosing this tool over others.

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