check_strx_withdrawal_eligibility

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds specific behavioral details: it shows staked amount, claimable rewards, rounds, and withdrawal status, which clarifies what data the tool returns. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentence that efficiently communicates purpose and output. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource. A slight improvement could be listing outputs more explicitly, but it is still efficient.

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 tool's low complexity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description adequately covers what it does and what it returns. However, it does not elaborate on conditions for withdrawal eligibility (e.g., whether unbonding period has passed) or reinforce read-only nature, but it is sufficient for a simple check tool.

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%, with both address and network parameters documented. The description does not add per-parameter details beyond the schema, but it indirectly provides context by explaining the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb 'Check' and the specific resource 'TRX available to withdraw after sTRX unstaking unbonding period'. It also lists key data shown: staked amount, claimable rewards, pending/completed unstake rounds, withdrawal status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_strx_balance or get_strx_account, which are more general.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies the context of checking after unbonding period but fails to mention exclusions or alternative tools (e.g., get_strx_records) that might be more appropriate for other queries.

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