unwrap_wsteth

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, but it only states the conversion. It omits that this submits an on-chain transaction, requires gas, or that the privateKey is used for signing. The description does not mention return values or error behavior, making it inadequate for a transaction tool.

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 is efficiently front-loaded and easy to parse, though it lacks structured details. For a simple tool, this brevity is acceptable, even if it sacrifices depth.

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?

This is a transaction tool requiring a private key and network selection, yet the description only gives the high-level action. It does not explain what happens after unwrapping, the default network behavior (BSC for a token typically on Ethereum), or any success/failure response. The lack of an output schema and annotations makes this incomplete for full contextual understanding.

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 parameters are already documented with basic meaning (amount, network, privateKey). The description adds no extra semantic clarity, such as unit format for amount, appropriate networks for wstETH, or security handling for privateKey. It meets the baseline but provides no additional value.

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 'unwrap' and clearly states the conversion from wstETH to stETH. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool wrap_steth, which does the opposite, so there is no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer usage solely from the name and schema, which is insufficient for selecting between related tools like wrap_steth or unwrap_native_token.

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