Get Staking Summary

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing the returned fields and the 'recommended next action,' which goes beyond what annotations convey. No contradictions with 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each part adds necessary information without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure by listing key fields (liquid balance, total staked, per-account states, APY, epoch timing, recommended next action). However, it could mention that it returns a JSON object or specify the format of the recommended action, and it doesn't address error handling or prerequisites (e.g., wallet existence), though openWorldHint mitigates.

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 has 100% coverage with a description for the 'walletAddress' parameter. The tool description does not add additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 provides a 'complete staking portfolio dashboard in a single call' and lists specific returned data (liquid balance, total staked, per-account states, APY, epoch timing, recommended next action). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_balance or get_staking_apy.

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 this is a comprehensive single-call tool for staking overview, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusion criteria. For example, it doesn't suggest using get_staking_apy if only APY is needed.

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