Retrieves unclaimed SOL staking rewards so users can identify pending crypto rewards and decide when to claim them.
Get Unclaimed Rewards API allows users to retrieve information about unclaimed rewards from their SOL staking activities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recvWindow | No | Time window for request validity |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'retrieve' implies a read-only operation, the description offers no details about pagination, data freshness, authentication requirements, or what 'unclaimed' means. It does not disclose any potential side effects or rate limits, leaving significant gaps.
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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand.
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?
The tool is simple with only one optional parameter and no output schema. The description is adequate but lacks context about the return format, what constitutes an unclaimed reward, and how this snapshot relates to historical staking data. Without annotations or output schema, more detail would be expected for full completeness.
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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter (recvWindow) with a clear description ('Time window for request validity'). The tool description does not mention the parameter, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning. Per the rubric, schema coverage above 80% yields a baseline of 3.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves information about unclaimed rewards from SOL staking activities, using the specific verb 'retrieve' and identifying the resource. This distinguishes it from other Binance staking tools like BinanceGetSolStakingHistory and BinanceGetBnsolRewardsHistory.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does but does not mention exclusions or contrast with sibling tools like BinanceGetSolStakingHistory or BinanceGetBoostRewardsHistory. Given the many similar staking-related tools, explicit usage context is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.