tibane_staking

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a key non-obvious behavior: the tool costs $0.01 paid in USDC on Solana via x402. It also names the returned metrics, implying a read-only stats call, though it omits data-source freshness and failure 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?

Two short sentences: the first states purpose and outputs, the second adds the essential payment constraint. No filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the two result metrics, and the payment requirement. It does not specify whether staked supply is in raw units or decimal-adjusted, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the only parameter (mint as a Solana base58 address). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond restating that this is for a token.

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 identifies the resource (Tibane staking stats for a token) and the exact outputs (total staked supply, number of stakers), which separates it from generic token_stats or holder tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', but the intent is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'staking stats for a token' implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over siblings such as token_stats or streamflow_locks. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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