stake_near

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the immediate outcome (receiving liquid staking tokens) but omits important behavioral details like token transfer, fees, confirmation requirements, or reversibility. This is a thin description for a transactional 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 delivers the core purpose without wasted words. It front-loads the action and outcome immediately.

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?

The tool is simple with fully documented parameters and no output schema. The description covers the essential action and outcome, but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., funded account), side effects, or return value. It is minimally viable but not rich.

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 covers all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds semantic value by linking 'meta-pool' to stNEAR and 'linear' to LiNEAR, which clarifies the protocol enum. It also reinforces that amount is in NEAR units, beyond a bare schema listing.

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 action ('Stake NEAR tokens') with resource context (Meta Pool or Linear) and outcome (receiving stNEAR or LiNEAR). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like unstake and withdraw.

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 usage context: when you want to stake NEAR to earn liquid staking tokens. Sibling tool names (unstake, withdraw) make the alternative scenarios obvious, though no explicit 'use when not' guidance is given.

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