get_stacking_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the shape of what comes back (lock state, signer manager, bond membership, balances), which is genuinely useful. It omits failure modes — e.g., behavior for a non-stacking address, whether bond membership is null when absent, or any network/latency expectations. Adequate but noticeably short of full disclosure for an annotation-free 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 payload sentence is front-loaded and dense with useful specifics, and the second sentence is a short routing tip rather than filler. Slightly more verbose than strictly necessary, but every clause earns its place.

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 compensates well by enumerating the returned fields; the lone parameter is fully covered by the schema. The only real gap is edge-case behavior for addresses without an active stacking position, which an agent would otherwise learn only by calling.

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 single address parameter already documents the 'uses active wallet if omitted' fallback, so the description adds nothing parameter-specific. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names the specific protocol domain (PoX-5 staking status) and enumerates the concrete data returned: locked amount, signer manager, lock period, unlock cycle, burn height, bond membership, and locked/unlocked balance. That is far more than a restated name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like dual_stacking_status, pillar_direct_stacking_status, or get_pox_info, which an agent must still disambiguate on its own.

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 only implied by the read-only 'get' framing and the follow-up tip pointing at earning_opportunities for acting on the result. There is no statement of when this is the right call versus dual_stacking_status or pillar_direct_stacking_status, and no note about what happens for an address that isn't stacking.

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