wrap_steth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a transaction requiring gas, that the privateKey is used for signing, that the operation might be irreversible or reversible via unwrap_wsteth, or any network-specific caveats. The only added context is that wstETH is non-rebasing, which describes the output token but not the operation's behavior.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes a useful explanatory parenthetical. No filler words, and every word contributes meaning.

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-based tool requiring a private key and potentially involving gas and network specifics, yet the description is minimal. It lacks details on supported networks (especially since the network default is 'bsc' while stETH/wstETH are typically Ethereum-centric), return values, error conditions, or prerequisites like token approvals. The schema provides parameter descriptions but not this broader operational context.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely reiterates the amount ('Amount of stETH to wrap') and does not clarify the network behavior or privateKey usage further.

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 specific action: 'Wrap stETH to wstETH', with a parenthetical explaining wstETH is the non-rebasing wrapped staked ETH. This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from related tools like unwrap_wsteth, wrap_native_token, and stake_eth_lido.

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 that this tool is used when you want to convert stETH to wstETH, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., unwrap_wsteth or native token wrapping). No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are given, but the intended use case is fairly evident from the name and description.

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