stader_unstake_hbarx

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns an 'unsigned transaction,' which implies a read-only operation that doesn't execute immediately, but it lacks details on permissions required, potential fees, rate limits, or what happens after preparation (e.g., how to sign and submit). This is a significant gap for a financial transaction tool.

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 that front-loads the key action and output. There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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 financial unstaking operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., transaction structure), error conditions, or next steps after preparation, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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 'amountHbarx' clearly documented as 'Amount of HBARX to unstake in smallest unit.' The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Prepare HBARX unstaking transaction') and specifies the resource (HBARX). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'stader_stake_hbar' by focusing on unstaking rather than staking. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential transaction preparation tools that might exist in a broader context.

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 HBARX tokens), when not to use it (e.g., if immediate execution is required), or refer to sibling tools like 'stader_get_exchange_rate' for rate information before unstaking.

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