dual_stacking_status

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

With no annotations, the description does useful work by disclosing mainnet-only availability, per-PoX-cycle enrollment timing, and that returns include both current and next cycle enrollment state plus an APR range that increases with more stacked STX. It does not explicitly state read-only/no side effects or auth requirements, but the 'Check'/'Returns' framing strongly indicates a read operation.

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 in the first sentence, and the following sentences explain the reward context, return data, and mainnet limitation efficiently. The earning_opportunities tip and explanatory Dual Stacking sentence are useful but slightly nonessential, keeping it just below maximally concise.

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 one-parameter status tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job naming the returned data and noting the mainnet restriction and cycle timing. It could be more complete by clarifying that it only reads status and by naming the enrollment/opt-out siblings, but the core information an agent needs is present.

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%, so the address parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check Dual Stacking enrollment status, APR data, minimum amount, and cycle overview.' It clearly implies a status/read operation rather than enrollment or opt-out, but it does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives like dual_stacking_enroll or dual_stacking_opt_out.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Check ... status' and the note that Dual Stacking is mainnet-only, plus the enrollment-cycle timing context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of dual_stacking_enroll, dual_stacking_opt_out, dual_stacking_get_rewards, or get_stacking_status.

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