Solentic

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

The annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation with open-world data. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that the transaction is unsigned, requires client-side signing, and that the wallet is set as both stake and withdraw authority. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with essential usage instructions. Every sentence earns its place by providing critical information.

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 complexity (creating financial transactions) and lack of output schema, the description does well by explaining what it returns (base64 transaction) and the required next steps. It could potentially mention error conditions or validation specifics, but it's largely complete for its 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 100%, providing clear documentation for both parameters. The description doesn't add additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but the schema adequately covers the parameters, so baseline 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 specific action ('Build an unsigned transaction to stake SOL with Blueprint validator') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_unstake_transaction' and 'submit_transaction'. It specifies the resource (SOL staking) and the exact output (base64 transaction).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Build an unsigned transaction') and what to do next ('sign client-side with your wallet and submit via submit_transaction'). It distinguishes it from the sibling 'submit_transaction' by clarifying this only creates the transaction, not submits it.

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