get_cosmos_delegations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get all' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the delegations come in. For a blockchain query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward query tool and gets directly to the point.

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?

For a read-only query tool with good schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what 'staking delegations' means in practical terms, what the return format looks like, or any error conditions. The description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps an agent would need to discover through trial.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'Cosmos address' which aligns with 'delegatorAddress' but doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. This 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 action ('Get all staking delegations') and target resource ('for a Cosmos address'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cosmos_account' or 'get_cosmos_rewards' that also retrieve Cosmos blockchain data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this is appropriate compared to other Cosmos-related tools (like 'get_cosmos_balance' or 'get_cosmos_rewards') or what specific use cases it serves. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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