Address staking delegations & history

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds a useful behavioral detail, that history is returned 'newest first', plus the exact composition of the response, but says nothing about pagination behavior or the historyLimit cap's practical effect.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that immediately places the tool on the address page's Staking section, then lists contents. It is dense but every clause carries information; only the parenthetical field list is slightly heavy.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and largely meets it by enumerating the returned fields and history event types. It leaves the 'fields' projection and pagination semantics unaddressed, but the core picture is complete enough to call correctly.

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 address, fields, and historyLimit are already documented in the schema and the description need not repeat them. It adds no param-specific syntax or defaults beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline.

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?

States a specific resource (address 'Staking' section) and enumerates the exact contents returned: totalDelegatedHype, per-validator delegations, and staking history. It distinguishes an address-scoped view from chain-wide siblings like flowscan_staking_overview, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 'Address page Staking section' framing implies when this applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing against siblings such as flowscan_staking_overview or flowscan_staking_events. An agent must infer the selection condition on its own.

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