cosmos_get_delegations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states it is a get operation, providing minimal transparency. It does not disclose whether the chain parameter defaults, how delegations are returned (e.g., active, unbonding), or if there are any pagination or edge-case behaviors.

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 filler words. It front-loads the core information and every word is relevant, earning top marks for brevity.

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 no output schema and a very terse description, the tool lacks context about return values, expected response structure, or special cases (e.g., empty delegations). Given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable as a minimal identifier, but it fails to fully equip an agent for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 coverage is 100% because both parameters have descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating 'for an address', which is already in the schema. It does not explain the chain parameter's role or default behavior, so it remains at the baseline.

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 'Get staking delegations for an address' clearly identifies the action (get), the resource (staking delegations), and the target (address). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cosmos_get_rewards and cosmos_get_balance, which serve different purposes.

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 when to use the tool (when you need staking delegations for an address) but does not explicitly state this or mention alternatives. There are no exclusions or comparisons with similar Cosmos tools, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing between delegation and reward queries.

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