Query Stake Snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description's only behavioral contribution is clarifying that a 'snapshot' means the mark/set/go set, which is modest added context but says nothing about what is returned per snapshot or whether all three are returned together.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope in the first clause, and the args section is short. 'Returns: Stake snapshot data.' is near-tautological filler that could have been omitted or made specific, keeping it short of a 5.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it never explains the distinction between mark/set/go snapshots or what fields a caller should expect, information an agent would need to use the result correctly. The safety profile is covered by annotations, so nothing critical 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% for the single parameter, and the description's 'Bech32 or hex stake pool ID' is verbatim the schema text, so it adds no meaning beyond structured data. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Query stake snapshots') and adds domain-specific scope by naming the three snapshot types (mark, set, go), which an agent can use to understand what data is being read. It does not, however, differentiate this tool from adjacent query siblings like cardano_query_stake_distribution or cardano_query_stake_pools.

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?

'Optionally filter by stake pool ID' is parameter guidance, not usage guidance. The description never states when to choose this tool over cardano_query_stake_distribution or cardano_query_stake_address_info, nor when a snapshot is the appropriate data source, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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