reputation_stake

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the 'writes state upstream (not read-only)' line is largely redundant. What the description genuinely adds is the two-step protocol — send the USDC transfer yourself first, then submit the tx_hash with a signed nonce — and the assurance that the tool never signs or moves funds. It omits what happens if a tx_hash or nonce is replayed, which matters since idempotentHint=false.

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 critical constraint is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the second paragraph restates it ('Use when you already sent USDC on-chain...') almost verbatim, and the trailing 'needs the credentials or wallet signature noted above where applicable' is vague filler. Roughly a third of the text is redundant.

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 five-required-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential operational context: the on-chain transfer must precede the call, the nonce comes from a fresh reputation_get_nonce, and the server custodies nothing. It does not say whether a new reputation record or status object is returned, but with no output schema that omission is minor.

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% and the per-field descriptions already explain wallet, tx_hash, nonce freshness and EIP-191 signature format. The description only reinforces the ordering ('send the transfer from your own wallet first, then pass its tx_hash'), adding little field-level meaning the schema does not already carry, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource — record an already-sent USDC stake against the treasury — and immediately scopes it with 'that YOU already sent on-chain.' It names reputation_transparency as the place to find the treasury address, so it is distinguishable from the sibling tools it could be confused with.

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 'Use when...' sentence plus 'Not for moving funds, which this server never does' gives an explicit precondition (transfer already broadcast) and an explicit exclusion. It does not contrast against the neighbouring reputation_unstake/reputation_withdraw flows, which would be the natural confusion point, so it falls short of a full 5.

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