get-delegations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or response format, which are critical for a tool querying blockchain data.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of blockchain/staking tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'staking information' entails (e.g., delegation amounts, validator details), potential response structure, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify what 'current staking information' includes or how the address should be formatted), meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the action ('Get') and target resource ('current staking information for an address'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-available-rewards' or 'delegate', which also relate to staking operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-available-rewards' or 'delegate'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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