cardano_query_pool_paramsQuery Cardano stake pool parameters, optionally filtered by stake pool ID, to retrieve pool configuration and operational details.
Query stake pool parameters. Optionally filter by stake pool ID.
Args:
stake_pool_id (string, optional): Bech32 or hex stake pool ID
Returns: Pool parameter details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stake_pool_id | No | Bech32 or hex stake pool ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the optional filter and a broad return category ('Pool parameter details'), without permissions, rate limits, or output structure.
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 short and front-loaded, giving the core action first and then structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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, single-parameter read-only query with full annotation coverage and a fully described schema, the description provides enough to call the tool correctly. The return value is only vaguely described as 'Pool parameter details,' and sibling differentiation is absent, but no critical invocation detail is missing.
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% and the single optional parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the same 'Bech32 or hex stake pool ID' meaning without adding syntax, validation, or behavioral nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 verb and resource: 'Query stake pool parameters.' This is clear and lets an agent know what it retrieves. However, it does not differentiate from sibling query tools such as cardano_query_stake_pools or cardano_query_stake_snapshot, so it falls short of a 5.
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 notes that the stake pool ID filter is optional, which implies usage context but does not say when to use this tool versus the many sibling query tools. There are no explicit when/when-not conditions or named alternatives, leaving routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.