claim_staking_rewards

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states the action. It does not mention that this is a state-changing transaction, potential gas costs, or that it submits a transaction to the network. No warnings about irreversibility or security considerations beyond the schema's private key note.

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 that is front-loaded and contains no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core action without wasting words, earning its place.

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 transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not indicate return values (e.g., transaction hash), network requirements, or any post-claim behavior. The minimal description leaves the agent without adequate context to handle the tool's effects.

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% and the individual parameter descriptions already provide meaning for network, privateKey, and stakingContract. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies as 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?

The description 'Claim pending staking rewards' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like stake_tokens, unstake_tokens, and get_staking_position. It precisely conveys the action of claiming rewards.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as having a staking position or being on a supported network, nor does it note exclusions or when to use other staking tools.

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