unstake_redeem

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. It explicitly warns that tokens are NOT returned directly to the wallet and that a separate claim() call is required, plus the PRIVATE_KEY prerequisite. This adds important behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 succinct with exactly two sentences and a brief warning. Every sentence provides essential information, and the most critical detail (the claim() requirement) is prominently placed.

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 is a transaction with no output schema, the description adequately covers the action, the required follow-up, and the environment prerequisite. It doesn't describe return values or failure modes, but these are less critical when the schema is complete and the warning covers the main usage caveat.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 unstakes and immediately redeems TLP for underlying tokens in one transaction. The verb 'unstake and immediately redeem' is specific and the resource (TLP) is named, distinguishing this combined operation from sibling tools like unstake and redeem_tlp.

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 phrase 'in one transaction' implies a combined operation versus separate calls, providing clear context. The warning that claim() must be called afterwards is a crucial usage directive, though it does not explicitly name alternative approaches or list when not to use this tool.

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