get_staking_levels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the description mentions the return content (requirements and rewards), but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response structure, potential sorting, or any side effects. It is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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, focused sentence that states the core function and key output details. There is no unnecessary repetition or filler, making it concise and easy to parse.

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 is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), but the description does not fully cover context like the meaning of categories, default behavior, or how the response is structured. It provides the essentials but leaves room for ambiguity regarding filters and output, so it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'category' fully described in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the enum values or default behavior. Since the schema already documents the parameter, baseline of 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') and a clear resource ('StarGate staking levels') with additional detail about the content ('requirements and rewards'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like stake_vet or get_user_stakes, which concern individual staking actions or user-specific data.

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_stake_info or get_token_level. It does not state any prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, so an agent may be unsure which tool to invoke for a given query about staking levels.

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