hl_user_staking_delegations

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It provides none: no mention of read-only nature, pagination, time filters, or other operational details. The description is a noun phrase with no behavioral content.

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 extremely short (5 words), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks structure and does not earn its place by adding useful information; it simply repeats the tool name with the word 'Active'.

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?

Even though an output schema exists and the tool is simple, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what constitutes an 'active staking delegation', how this differs from related staking tools, or the context in which this data would be useful. The description adds no value beyond the tool name.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'user' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the parameter's meaning or format. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent to guess what value 'user' expects.

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 'Active staking delegations (delegations)' is essentially a tautology of the tool name, restating 'staking delegations' without specifying an action like 'list' or 'get'. It offers only a vague qualifier 'active' and fails to distinguish from sibling tools such as hl_user_staking_summary or hl_delegator_history.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer the tool's purpose entirely from its name and schema.

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