write.account.stake

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

Discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: atomic flash-action, time-sensitive calldata, potential revert due to price movement, retry recommendation, and Tenderly simulation unavailability. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true).

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?

Front-loaded with core purpose, each of four sentences adds unique value: operation types, parameter guidance, time-sensitivity, error handling. No redundant phrasing.

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?

Covers preconditions, error handling, parameter nuances, and environment specifics (simulation). With output schema present, description fully equips agent for correct invocation.

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?

Adds significant meaning beyond schema: explains asset_address usage differs by action (non-staked vs staked PM address). Schema descriptions are generic; description clarifies operational logic for all parameters.

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 tool performs flash-actions: stake, unstake, or claim rewards for an LP position. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like write.account.add_liquidity or write.account.remove_liquidity.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on using the action parameter, specifying asset_address for staking vs unstaking, time-sensitivity (broadcast within 30s), retry logic, and a precondition (verify position existence). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but sufficient.

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