Check an address for pending stakes that are eligible for activation to start earning rewards.
Get information about pending stakes that can be activated for earning rewards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | The address to check activatable stakes for. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It correctly indicates read-only behavior ('Get information'), but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or other constraints. For a simple query, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.
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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No wasted words, and the structure is front-loaded with the key action.
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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough context to understand its basic function. However, it could benefit from mentioning the return format or any prerequisites.
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% (only parameter 'address' with description). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the input schema provides, so baseline score of 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 tool retrieves information about pending stakes that can be activated for earning rewards. The verb 'Get' and resource 'pending stakes' are specific, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like get_staking_balances.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context suggests it's a simple query, but no exclusions or conditions are provided. Usage is implied but not differentiated from other staking-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.