atstake_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it explicitly says read-only and explains the unlock requirement for the default wallet versus address-based reads. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but discloses the key operational traits for a read tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by useful interpretation guidance and then auth behavior. The explanation of flat book versus directional position is somewhat detailed for a one-parameter read tool, but it earns its place by clarifying the returned data.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains what the balances mean and how to interpret idle versus bonded balances. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it could say more about the outcome values or response shape.

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% and the single address parameter is already documented in the schema as defaulting to the unlocked wallet. The description reinforces that default and adds the useful nuance that a supplied address avoids unlocking, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 it returns share balances and their value under each outcome, making the resource and result clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling atstake tools such as atstake_get_bid or atstake_market_status, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

It gives concrete usage guidance: defaults to the unlocked wallet, which requires an unlocked wallet, while passing an address reads anyone without unlocking. It does not explain when to prefer this over sibling position-related tools, but the auth and parameter context is clear.

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