Query Stake Address Info

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The description adds only the shape of the result (delegation and reward balance); it says nothing about failure modes for invalid/non-registered stake addresses or any rate/network constraints implied by openWorldHint=false.

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 text is short and front-loaded, with purpose first and Args/Returns clearly separated. The Args entry duplicates the schema verbatim, which is mildly wasteful but does not bloat the definition.

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 usefully sketches the return surface (delegation status, reward balance) for a single required parameter, and annotations cover the safety profile. It is adequate for this simple read tool, though the return sketch remains terse.

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 description merely restates the schema's own text ('Bech32 stake address to query'). Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the semantics and the description adds no format examples, network scoping, or validation detail.

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 information about a stake address') and enumerates the payload ('including delegation and rewards'). It is clear, but it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as cardano_address_info, cardano_query_stake_pools, or cardano_query_stake_distribution.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives — for example, when to use it versus cardano_address_info for a full address or versus cardano_query_stake_pools for pool-level data. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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