stake_to_prover

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

No annotations are provided. The description indicates it provides a URL rather than executing the staking directly, implying a non-destructive, informational step. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions needed, or whether the URL leads to an external site.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the manual step indicator. It is concise and contains no unnecessary words, though it could benefit from a brief note on the output.

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?

The description is minimal given the lack of output schema and annotations. It does not explain what the URL looks like, how to use it, or prerequisites (e.g., having a prover contract). Error handling and return values are absent. With 2 required params, more context is expected.

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 100% description coverage for both parameters. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score 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 provides a URL for staking PROVE tokens to a prover. The verb 'stake' and resource 'PROVE tokens to your prover' are specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_prove_faucet' which is for faucet, not staking.

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 includes '(MANUAL STEP)' indicating it's not automated, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or contexts are mentioned.

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