Liquid staking rate

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

The description mentions the rate 'only appreciates' and the fixed-point representation (1e9), providing some behavioral insight. However, without annotations, it omits details like authentication needs or safety implications.

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?

A single sentence delivers the core purpose and key detail ('price is the stgTON→TON rate and only appreciates') efficiently. No redundancy.

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 low complexity (one param, no output schema), the description covers the essential meaning. However, it could mention the response format or additional fields for completeness.

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 a single parameter 'masterAddress' described. The description adds minor context ('Staking master, e.g. stgTON...') but does not significantly enhance beyond the schema.

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 tool provides a 'Live rate for a staking pool' and specifies the price field meaning. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tegro_staking_pools (which lists pools) and DEX tools.

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 vs alternatives. The description implies usage for getting a live rate, but fails to mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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