Solentic

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and idempotency, the description clarifies this is a 'complete staking portfolio dashboard in a single call' and specifies the comprehensive data returned. This helps the agent understand the scope and output format, though it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first explains what the tool returns, the second explains when to use it. There's zero wasted text, and the most important information (that this is a comprehensive dashboard) is front-loaded.

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 rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) and 100% schema coverage, the description provides excellent context about the tool's purpose and usage. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates by listing the specific data returned. It could be more complete by mentioning response format or potential errors.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single parameter (walletAddress). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing extra value. The description focuses on the tool's purpose and output rather than parameter details.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('returns', 'replaces') and resources ('staking portfolio dashboard', 'liquid balance, total staked, per-account states, current APY, epoch timing, recommended next action'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by naming four alternatives it replaces (check_balance, check_stake_accounts, get_staking_apy, get_epoch_timing).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Replaces calling check_balance + check_stake_accounts + get_staking_apy + get_epoch_timing separately.' This clearly indicates this is a consolidated alternative to multiple specific sibling tools, giving the agent clear decision criteria.

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