stake_tokens

Does 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. It only states the action and doesn't reveal that this is a transaction-sending operation that requires gas, may require prior token approval, or returns a transaction hash. It could mislead an agent into thinking it's a simple read-like operation.

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 with zero fluff. It is concise and appropriately sized given that the schema already documents parameters. Every word earns 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 tool that executes a staking transaction, the description is too sparse. It doesn't mention expected return values (e.g., transaction hash), potential side effects, or edge cases like insufficient approvals. With no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to fill critical gaps for an AI agent.

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 provides descriptions for all 4 parameters (amount in wei, network default, private key security, staking contract address), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level context, which is acceptable at the baseline of 3 since the schema handles the semantics.

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 action: 'Stake tokens in a staking contract'. It uses a specific verb and object, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling staking tools like stake_eth_lido or stake_lp_tokens, which is a minor gap.

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 compared to alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites like token approval, network selection, or when a user should prefer this over stake_eth_lido or stake_lp_tokens. The one-sentence description gives no context for selection.

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