stake_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states input/output types but does not discuss destructiveness, idempotency, authentication needs, or side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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?

Two sentences with front-loaded purpose are efficient, but the description is so minimal that it misses necessary detail. Conciseness is good, but not at the expense of completeness.

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 tool's complexity (requires prior quote, returns a swap container), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the prerequisite, the return type's purpose, or the staking context. Sibling tools like 'stake_quote' and 'unstake_transaction' further highlight the need for more context.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description merely says 'Expects a StakeTransactionRequestContainer' without explaining its contents. The schema includes some detail for nested 'transaction_id', but the description adds no value in guiding the agent on parameter meaning or source.

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 'Execute a stake transaction,' which clearly indicates the tool's action and resource. It is distinct from siblings like 'stake_quote' (quote generation) and 'unstake_transaction' (unstaking), but does not elaborate on the specific operation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that a prior 'stake_quote' is required to obtain the transaction_id, leaving the agent without context for proper sequencing.

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