Stake SOL (one-shot)

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

Discloses critical security behavior: secret key sent over HTTPS, used in-memory, never stored or logged. This adds value beyond annotations which only have openWorldHint=true. No contradiction.

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?

Four efficient sentences covering action, security, return value, verification, and recommendation. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Despite no output schema, description mentions return type (confirmed transaction signature). Covers purpose, security, verification link, and usage recommendation. Complete for sensitive staking operation.

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 descriptions cover all 3 parameters (100% coverage). Description reiterates secret key handling but does not add new meaning beyond what schema already provides, so baseline 3.

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?

Clearly states action (stake), resource (SOL), and validator (Blueprint) in a single call. Differentiates from siblings like create_stake_transaction by calling it a one-shot and recommending it for autonomous agents.

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?

Explicitly recommends it for autonomous agents and suggests verifying via verify_code_integrity, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like create_stake_transaction.

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