unstake_strx

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the unbonding period. Annotations already indicate the tool is destructive, and the description provides additional behavioral context about the timing of withdrawal.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose first. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 unstake tool, the description covers the key points: action, output, timing constraint, and prerequisite. It is complete enough for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly, though it could mention effects on staking rewards.

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%, and the schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (amount format, network). The description does not add any new information about parameters beyond what is in the schema.

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 action: 'Unstake sTRX to receive TRX back.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'stake_trx_to_strx' which performs the opposite operation.

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 provides explicit context: it notes the unbonding period and mentions a pre-check for sufficient balance. However, it does not mention alternatives like using 'check_strx_withdrawal_eligibility' to verify eligibility first.

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