Armor Crypto MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

stake_transaction

Execute a staking transaction using a previously generated stake quote ID. Turns a stake approval into a completed staking operation.

Instructions

Execute a stake transaction.

Expects a StakeTransactionRequestContainer, returns a SwapTransactionRequestContainer.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "stake_transaction_requests": "<stake_transaction_requests>"
    },
    "name": "stake_transaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`stake_transaction_requests`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`swap_transaction_requests`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 18, 2025

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only says it executes a transaction and returns a container, without mentioning side effects, authorization needs, or the unexpected return type 'SwapTransactionRequestContainer,' which may mislead the agent about the tool's output.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise at two sentences, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It could be more informative without losing conciseness, e.g., by explaining the prerequisite of a stake quote.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's role in a staking workflow and the lack of annotations, the description should clarify the relationship to other tools (e.g., stake_quote) and the container content. It falls short, leaving the tool under-specified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description merely repeats the parameter type name 'StakeTransactionRequestContainer' without explaining its structure or required fields. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of 'transaction_id' and the array.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Execute a stake transaction,' which identifies the action and resource. However, it lacks specificity on what a stake transaction entails and does not differentiate it from related siblings like 'stake_quote' or 'unstake_transaction.'

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a stake quote first) or context for when to use this vs. other staking operations.

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