koios_pool_stake_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the mark/set/go snapshot types, adding some nuance, but it does not describe the return format, pagination behavior, potential rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the essential information without unnecessary words. Every part adds value, and the parenthetical clarification about snapshot types is compact yet informative.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns, but it does not describe the response structure or any paging details. Given the tool's specificity and the lack of annotations, the description feels incomplete for an agent needing to understand the full context of the result, especially with multiple snapshot types mentioned but not explained.

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?

All parameters are already described in the schema, so baseline starts at 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how _pool_bech32 relates to the snapshot types or how limit/offset interact with the snapshot sets.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('stake snapshot for a specific pool') while adding the distinctive qualifier '(mark, set, go snapshots)'. This distinguishes the tool from other pool-related siblings like pool_delegators or pool_history, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other pool-related tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternative tools. It simply states what the tool does without contextualizing its use case among the many sibling koios pool endpoints.

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