claim_stacking_rewards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it reveals a second transaction paid by this wallet, the resulting asset (sBTC vs BTC withdrawal depending on payout address), and an eligibility exclusion. It omits idempotency (what happens if the cycle was already claimed) and any wallet-unlock/auth requirement.

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?

Core purpose is front-loaded and the extra-transaction caveat follows logically. The trailing 'earning_opportunities' tip is mildly promotional but plausibly routes an agent to discovery; otherwise little wasted text.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers cost implications, reward delivery mode, and eligibility. The main remaining gap is failure/idempotency behavior, which matters for a claim that can be retried.

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 schema already documents both parameters, including the signerManager default. The description adds only light framing ('the staker's signer manager', 'that cycle's rewards') without new format or constraint detail; baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Claim), a specific resource (PoX-5 sBTC rewards), and scope (one reward cycle, via the staker's signer manager). That distinguishes it from sibling reads like get_stacking_rewards and from stackspot_claim_rewards / dual_stacking_get_rewards, which operate on different mechanisms.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use context (per cycle, via a signer manager) and a when-not ('Not available for managers that pay off-chain'). It does not explicitly compare against sibling claim tools such as stackspot_claim_rewards, so the alternative routing is only implied.

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