pillar_direct_stack_stx

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses important behaviors: agent-signed, no browser needed, backend sponsors gas, dual-stacking prerequisite, and a failure mode for Fast Pool. It stops short of describing return values, lock periods, or minimum amounts, leaving some gaps for a mutation 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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently packs prerequisites, pool semantics, and a failure condition into a few sentences. The trailing tip about earning_opportunities is somewhat tangential but not disruptive; overall it earns its length.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers critical context: agent signing, gas sponsorship, dual-stacking enrollment, contract-level behavior, and a refusal condition. It could be stronger by mentioning what the call returns or typical lock periods, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining Fast Pool delegates to pox4-fast-pool-v3 through pox-4 and Stacking DAO deposits into core for stSTX yield, clarifying the economic and contract differences between the two enum values.

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 ('Stack STX from your Pillar smart wallet via Fast Pool or Stacking DAO') and distinguishes the two pool options with contract-level detail. It explicitly names the alternative sibling ('use stack_stx for PoX-5 staking'), enabling an agent to tell this tool apart from generic stacking tools.

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 provides a clear prerequisite ('wallet must be enrolled in dual stacking first') and a critical when-not condition ('Fast Pool ... is refused while pox-4 is not the active PoX contract'), with a direct alternative ('use stack_stx for PoX-5 staking'). The agent knows both when this tool can be used and when it must be avoided.

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