unstake_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states input/output types (UnstakeTransactionRequestContainer to SwapTransactionRequestContainer) but omits side effects (e.g., irreversible on-chain transaction), authentication requirements, or failure modes.

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?

Extremely concise (two sentences, 14 words). No fluff. However, it could be restructured to frontload behavioral details; overall efficient but sacrifices 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 is part of a staking workflow with sibling tools like 'unstake_quote', the description fails to connect the tool to the larger process. No output schema description is needed (exists), but missing context about prerequisites (must have a quote) and return value purpose.

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 0% as the tool description does not describe any parameters. The schema itself has a description for 'transaction_id', but the tool description only mentions 'Expects a UnstakeTransactionRequestContainer' without explaining the nested structure or required fields, adding minimal value.

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 'Execute an unstake transaction', which is a specific verb+resource pair. It differentiates from siblings like 'unstake_quote' (generates quote) and 'stake_transaction' (opposite operation), providing basic purpose clarity.

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 (e.g., after unstake_quote). No preconditions or contextual cues provided. The description lacks any usage direction.

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