Query Stake Distribution

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

Annotations already declare it as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that basic read operation, failing to disclose return format, scope limitations, or any behavioral nuances.

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?

One clear sentence with no filler. However, it is somewhat under-specified for the number of sibling tools.

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 no-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the missing piece is distinguishing it from siblings and explaining what 'stake distribution' entails (e.g., per-pool stake fractions). Without that, an agent may hesitate between this and similar stake tools.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are required, and there are no parameter semantics to clarify.

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?

States a specific verb (Query) and resource (current stake distribution across all stake pools). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like cardano_query_stake_snapshot or cardano_query_stake_pools, leaving ambiguity about which one returns distribution data.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus cardano_query_stake_pools, cardano_query_stake_snapshot, or cardano_query_pool_params. The description provides no usage context or exclusions.

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