q402_stake_positions

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the read-only nature, authentication method (Multichain API key), and safety guarantee ('no private key, no funds move'). It also explains key behavioral details like the 'max' semantics for unstaking and staking, which is transparent and useful.

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 information-dense and well-structured: it starts with READ-ONLY, covers return values, authentication, safety, and typical use cases in just three sentences. Every clause adds value, and the layout is easy to scan.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly enumerates returned fields (tier, principal, APR, times, matured flag, aggregate totals, max values) and explains the meaning of 'max'. Combined with authentication details and usage guidance, it is fully self-contained for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 schema covers the single optional walletId parameter with a clear description (schema coverage 100%). The tool description does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema, but it does provide context about whose positions are shown, which aligns with the default wallet behavior. 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 opens with a clear verb ('show') and specific resource ('Agent Wallet's open Q staking positions on QuackAiStake (BNB)'). It differentiates from siblings by emphasizing READ-ONLY and listing exact returned data, distinguishing it from q402_stake, q402_unstake, and q402_yield_positions.

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?

Provides explicit natural-language use cases ('what are my Q stakes?', 'how much Q can I unstake?') and points to using it before q402_unstake with amount 'max'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative read tools like q402_balance, so it falls just short of a 5.

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