get_user_stake

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and it discloses the return fields, but it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or error behavior. Basic behavior is implied but not fully disclosed.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every phrase adds value (staked share amounts, claimable rewards, unstaking cooldown). No wasted words.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides a reasonable summary of the response ('staked share amounts, claimable rewards, cooldown shares'), which is sufficient. It could mention error handling or return format, but given the simplicity, it is nearly complete.

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 fully documents the sole parameter 'address' with a clear description ('Sui wallet address (0x...) to query staking info for'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('user's TLP staking positions') and enumerates the specific data returned (staked share amounts, claimable rewards, unstaking cooldown). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stake_pools or get_positions.

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 this tool is for reading a specific user's staking data, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like get_stake_pools or provide exclusions/alternatives. Usage context is implied by the purpose.

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