get_staking_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates the output content (staked amount, rewards, pending withdrawals), which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly mention safety, permissions, or potential errors. This is adequate but lacks depth.

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 immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It contains no extraneous text and efficiently lists the key return items. Excellent conciseness and structure.

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 simplicity of the tool, the description covers its purpose and the main return values (staked amount, rewards, pending withdrawals). While there is no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand what to expect. It could mention edge cases, but overall it is fairly complete.

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 already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (protocol enum, accountId). The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameters themselves, so the schema is sufficient. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 gets the user's staking position, listing the specific data points (staked amount, rewards, pending withdrawals). This verb-resource pairing is precise and distinguishes it from sibling tools like stake_near, unstake, and withdraw, which perform actions rather than queries.

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 this tool is for checking staking status, as opposed to performing staking actions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or when to prefer a sibling like get_pool_stats. There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives, so the guidance is only implicit.

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