stake_lp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the private key requirement and does not disclose that staking is a transaction with side effects (e.g., gas costs, potential failure, irreversible state changes). This is a significant gap for a write-action tool.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes a necessary prerequisite. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool has a simple 2-parameter schema and no output schema, but as a staking (mutation) tool with no annotations, it lacks essential contextual details such as potential error conditions, transaction confirmation expectations, or gas implications. The description is minimally viable but has clear gaps in operational context.

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 both parameters (amount and stakePoolIndex) with descriptions and allowed values. The description adds no additional parameter-level context, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without enhancement.

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 specific action (stake), the resource (existing TLP tokens), and the purpose (to earn rewards). The phrase 'existing TLP tokens' effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like mint_stake_lp, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 a clear prerequisite ('Requires PRIVATE_KEY in .env') and implicitly distinguishes this tool from minting via 'existing TLP tokens.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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