compare_staking_options

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'compare,' which does not reveal whether the tool uses live market data, applies assumptions, computes projected returns, or has side effects. Important behavioral details are absent for a tool that likely aggregates external yield information.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core comparison action and includes concrete examples, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the comparison returns or how results are presented. It adequately covers inputs and comparison targets, but leaves return format, data sources, and assumptions unstated, which is a notable gap for a comparison tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents 'amount' and 'time_horizon' with their meaning and enum values. The description adds little beyond contextualizing the amount as NEAR for staking/investment, which is already present in the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Compare') and resource (staking vs liquid staking vs DeFi yields) for a given amount, naming examples like stNEAR and LiNEAR. It is distinct enough from siblings like get_defi_yields because it emphasizes a comparison across categories, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 implies the tool is for comparing staking and yield options, and the 'given NEAR amount' hint provides some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_defi_yields or get_lending_rates, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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