unstake_lst

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool generates a transaction and explains the delayed/instant rate-vs-fee tradeoff. However, it doesn't clarify whether the transaction is signed, submitted, or just constructed, nor does it mention auth requirements or fallback behavior if instant unstaking is unavailable.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the mode distinction is placed immediately after, giving an agent the essential decision-relevant information efficiently.

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 4-parameter transaction-generating tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core operation and the key mode decision. It does not specify the return value shape, whether the transaction is signed or submitted, or any prerequisites, so it is adequate but not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter-level context for the `instant` flag by explicitly contrasting 'better rate' for delayed unstaking against 'with fee' for instant unstaking, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'may have fees' note.

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 states a specific action ('unstake') on a specific resource ('LST tokens back to NEAR') and clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like stake_for_lst and balance/rate queries. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: when a transaction to unstake LST back to NEAR is needed. It also gives a concrete choice between delayed and instant unstaking with tradeoffs. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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