Solentic

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world operation. The description adds valuable context by specifying the output includes 'balances, states, authorities, epoch timing, and per-account action guidance', which helps the agent understand the richness of the returned data beyond just a list, though it does not detail rate limits or authentication needs.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and output details without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the description details the output content, this is largely complete for a read-only tool. However, the lack of an output schema means the agent must infer the structure from the description, which mentions multiple data types but not their format, leaving minor gaps in predictability.

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 100%, with the parameter 'walletAddress' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or clarification about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, 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 verb 'List' and the resource 'stake accounts delegated to Blueprint for a wallet', specifying the scope (all accounts for a given wallet) and distinguishing it from siblings like 'check_balance' or 'get_staking_summary' by focusing on per-account details and delegation to Blueprint.

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 usage when needing detailed stake account information for a wallet, including balances, states, and action guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_staking_summary' (which might provide aggregated data) or 'get_validator_info' (which focuses on validators rather than accounts), leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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