getLaunchpoolUserCurrentStaking

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and mostly succeeds: it reveals that this is a read-style operation ('Returns'), indicates authentication expectations via 'authenticated user's', and discloses response content including USD-denominated totals and per-position fields. It does not explicitly state 'no side effects' or describe empty-result behavior, but the get-style name and 'Returns' language make the read-only intent clear.

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 core information is front-loaded in the first sentence and the description is compact overall. However, the 'AI agent can use this...' and 'Agent hint' paragraphs largely repeat the same usage direction, creating minor redundancy.

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 having no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete for its zero-parameter read-only purpose: it covers what the endpoint returns, the key fields the agent needs to summarize a portfolio, and the intended user-facing use case. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has zero properties and a baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document. The description reinforces that the tool acts on the authenticated user's data, which is consistent with the no-parameter design.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the authenticated user's active Launchpool staking positions' and enumerates the exact contents (USD portfolio summary, staked amount, accumulated reward, auto-redeem date). The 'active' qualifier helps distinguish this from history/activity siblings such as getLaunchpoolUserHistory.

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 says the endpoint should be used to show a user their current staking overview/portfolio at a glance, which gives clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the 'current active positions' framing implies the boundary against historical/activity endpoints.

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