unstake_tokens

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing that this is an on-chain transaction requiring signing, that it may have gas costs, or that it could fail. No context is given about the effect on the staking position or what happens with the withdrawn tokens.

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 filler. It communicates the core purpose without any wasted words, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

Given that this is a mutating on-chain operation with no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention that the tool will send a transaction, how the network is selected, what the return value looks like (e.g., transaction hash), or any security considerations. The description is too sparse for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and consequences.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (amount, network, privateKey, stakingContract). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema; it simply repeats 'staking contract' which is already clear from the parameter name and description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Unstake/withdraw' and identifies the resource 'tokens from a staking contract', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like stake_tokens (the reverse operation) and claim_staking_rewards (which is for rewards, not principal). It clearly states the action and object.

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 versus alternatives such as claim_staking_rewards, get_staking_position, or remove_liquidity. There is no mention of exclusivity, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent decide between this and related tools.

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