Retrieve live staking tier thresholds and benefits—min stake, rate-limit multiplier, and fee discount—at call time to check current, admin-configurable reputation requirements.
[Wicked Reputation] Live tier thresholds and benefits (min stake, rate-limit multiplier, fee discount). Read at call time — thresholds are admin-configurable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that thresholds are admin-configurable and must be read fresh, which is real behavioral context, but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or whether results are cached — for a zero-annotation tool that leaves significant gaps.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the payload contents before the freshness caveat; every clause carries information. The bracketed namespace prefix is noise but small.
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 no-input read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should describe the returned shape more fully. It names three benefit fields but not the overall structure or whether tiers are returned as a list, so an agent cannot fully anticipate the response.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.
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?
States a concrete resource (tier thresholds and benefits) and enumerates the payload components (min stake, rate-limit multiplier, fee discount), which is far more specific than the name alone. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from the nearby reputation_status / reputation_statement / reputation_query siblings.
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?
"Read at call time" implies the tool should be invoked when current values are needed rather than relying on cached thresholds, which is useful implied guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. an alternative, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.