get_stake_pools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a non-destructive read operation, and it mentions the specific data fields returned. However, it does not disclose whether the response is a list or single object, potential rate limits, or any other behavioral nuances beyond the basic read-only implication.

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 primary purpose and key included data. Every word earns its place, with no filler or 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 the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is mostly sufficient. It states the two key data points returned, but it does not specify whether the result is a collection or single item, and it may omit other fields. This is a moderate gap for a tool with no output schema to fall back on.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about the operation, but there are no parameter semantics to clarify. It appropriately avoids unnecessary detail.

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 gets TLP staking pool information, including current TLP price and total staked shares. The verb 'Get' plus specific resource 'TLP staking pool information' makes the purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_lp_pools, but the TLP-specific focus provides reasonable differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_user_stake or get_lp_pools. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer usage purely from the name and description.

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