get_flr_stake_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It transparently lists the data categories returned and the network scope, and implies a read-only aggregation behavior. It does not mention caching, freshness, or failure modes, but for a pure getter the output inventory is fairly transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence that opens with the core value proposition and then enumerates the included data elements. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 getter with only two schema-constrained parameters, the description provides a strong high-level inventory of returned categories. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits response shape, units, and potential error behavior, leaving some ambiguity for an agent consuming the result.

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 0%, so the description must help interpret parameters. It maps 'address' to the portfolio subject and 'network' to all four networks, but does not explain address format or network value syntax. The schema's regex and enum already provide those constraints, so the description adds only minimal semantic value.

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 identifies a specific aggregate getter for an address's Flare portfolio and enumerates the exact contents: native FLR, WFLR, FTSO vote power, delegation, claimable rewards by source, and FlareDrops. It also notes coverage of all four networks, which distinguishes it from simpler siblings like get_flr_balance or get_ftso_feed.

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 'One-call Flare portfolio' phrasing implies this tool is the consolidated option when multiple stake-related data points are needed at once. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_flr_balance, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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