stake_eth_lido

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It fails to mention that this is a state-changing transaction requiring gas, that the private key is used to sign, that staked ETH is not directly reversible, or that a transaction hash is returned. The only behavioral hint is 'receive stETH (liquid staking)', which is insufficient for a transaction involving a private key.

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 action and result. It contains no redundant content and earns its place. Brevity is present without sacrificing purpose clarity.

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?

Despite complete schema coverage, this is a DeFi staking operation with significant complexity (transaction submission, gas, security considerations). The description is incomplete: no mention of what happens after execution (e.g., transaction hash, stETH credited to the signer's address), no explanation of the staking process, and no output schema to fill gaps. The description would need more context to be considered complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter (amount, network, referral, privateKey). The description does not add further parameter-level detail beyond stating the overall outcome. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already handles 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 states a specific verb ('Stake'), a clear resource ('ETH with Lido'), and a concrete outcome ('receive stETH (liquid staking)'). It distinguishes from generic siblings like 'stake_tokens' by naming Lido and stETH, and from 'wrap_steth' which wraps existing stETH.

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 the appropriate use case (staking ETH via Lido to get liquid stETH) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stake_tokens' or 'wrap_steth'. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so guidance is only implicit.

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