stake_vet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the main action (stake and mint) but omits crucial details like lock-up period, maturity, reversibility, or the need for a VET balance. Sibling tools like get_maturity_end_block suggest such aspects, but the description doesn't address them.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and outcome. Every word earns its place, and it avoids unnecessary details.

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 staking/minting transaction, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain what happens to staked assets, how to unstake, or any lock/maturity conditions. With no annotations or output schema, the description alone is inadequate for a complex action.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters (levelId and autoDelegate) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantics, such as how level names map to levelId range or the effect of autoDelegate, so it stays at the baseline.

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 stakes VET to mint a StarGate NFT, listing specific NFT levels. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like unstake_stargate_nft and get_staking_levels.

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 a user wants to stake VET to mint an NFT, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It doesn't mention alternatives or prerequisites, relying on the uniqueness of the action.

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