stader_stake_hbar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool prepares a transaction and returns an unsigned transaction, which implies a read-only operation that doesn't execute changes. However, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens after the transaction is signed. For a financial tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence: 'Prepare HBAR staking transaction (returns unsigned transaction)'. It is front-loaded with the core action and output, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clarifying the tool's function.

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?

Given the complexity of a staking transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., structure of the unsigned transaction), potential side effects, or how to proceed after preparation. For a tool that likely involves financial operations, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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, with the single parameter 'amountHbar' documented as 'Amount of HBAR to stake (e.g., '10' for 10 HBAR)'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Prepare HBAR staking transaction (returns unsigned transaction)'. It specifies the verb ('prepare'), resource ('HBAR staking transaction'), and output type ('unsigned transaction'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'stader_unstake_hbarx' beyond the 'stake' vs 'unstake' distinction in names, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an account or specific conditions), compare to siblings like 'stader_unstake_hbarx' or 'stader_get_exchange_rate', or indicate when not to use it. Usage is implied by the name and purpose but lacks explicit context.

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