Check Stake Accounts

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds value by specifying what data is returned (balances, states, authorities, epoch timing, action guidance), enriching the behavioral understanding beyond the annotations.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action ('List all stake accounts delegated to Blueprint for a wallet'), followed by a concise list of outputs. No redundancy or unnecessary words.

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 low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, simple read operation), the description provides sufficient information for correct invocation: it states the input (wallet address) and the output fields. No gaps are apparent.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the single parameter (walletAddress) with a clear description. The description adds no further semantic detail about the parameter itself, so it meets 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 tool lists all stake accounts delegated to Blueprint for a wallet, and enumerates the fields shown (balances, states, authorities, epoch timing, action guidance), distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_balance (which only checks balance) and get_staking_summary (which likely provides aggregated data).

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 implies the tool should be used when detailed per-account staking information is needed for a specific wallet. It provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternative tools (e.g., get_staking_summary for aggregated data).

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