get_stake_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it only says 'get detailed information.' It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it returns stake-specific data versus general NFT metadata, or what permissions are required. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 verb and resource, containing no filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what 'detailed information' includes, especially given the tool's name implies stake-specific data. It fails to mention return fields, stake status, maturity, or level, and does not distinguish itself from generic NFT info tools, leaving notable gaps in 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 schema already fully documents the only parameter, tokenId, with 100% coverage. The description adds only the phrase 'by token ID,' which reinforces but does not extend schema semantics. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles parameter meaning adequately.

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 identifies the action ('get detailed information') and the resource ('specific StarGate NFT by token ID'), which distinguishes it from list-style siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from generic NFT info tools like get_nft_info or get_nft_metadata, leaving some overlap ambiguity.

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 usage when the user has a specific StarGate NFT token ID, which provides clear context. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, such as when to prefer get_nft_info or get_user_stakes, so guidance is limited to implied usage.

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