Query Stake Pools

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond confirming it queries data. It does not mention return format, potential size of the result set, or any performance considerations, but with annotations covering the basics, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It communicates the core purpose efficiently.

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 parameterless read-only query tool with full annotation coverage, the description provides the essential information. An output schema is absent, so the description could have mentioned what is returned (a list of IDs), but the core action is clear. The lack of sibling differentiation is a minor gap.

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 takes no parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to describe. Baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 clear verb (query) and resource (all registered stake pool IDs). The scope 'all registered' is specified. However, it does not distinguish itself from related sibling tools like cardano_query_stake_distribution or cardano_query_pool_params, which also deal with stake pool 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?

The description implies usage by saying 'all registered stake pool IDs', but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling query tools, some differentiation would be helpful, yet the lack of parameters makes the intended use somewhat self-evident.

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