stake_for_lst

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of safety disclosure, and it does so by clarifying that the tool only 'generate[s] a transaction' and 'returns transaction details for signing' rather than broadcasting or executing the stake. This prevents the agent from assuming an on-chain side effect has occurred. It does not detail prerequisites or transaction format, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the key action ('generate a transaction') is front-loaded and the signing-return behavior is stated immediately after. Every clause adds information.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter transaction generator, the description covers the essential workflow: build a stake transaction and return details for signing. There is no output schema, so the high-level return description is necessary and present; it could add an explicit statement about which protocol yields stNEAR vs LiNEAR, but the schema and token names make the tool usable.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents amount, network, and protocol. The description adds a useful hint that the staking tokens are stNEAR or LiNEAR, but it does not map those tokens to the protocol enum values or add further param-level meaning.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it 'generate[s] a transaction to stake NEAR for liquid staking tokens' and names the two token outputs (stNEAR or LiNEAR). This clearly separates it from sibling tools such as unstake_lst, get_lst_balance, and compare_lst_providers.

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 intended use is explicitly stated: stake NEAR for stNEAR/LiNEAR via a chosen protocol. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing (e.g., to unstake_lst for the reverse operation), so it stops short of a 5, but the context is unambiguous.

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