Staked position

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that it reads the public chain and public validators list, never signs and never sends, and clarifies error semantics for failed lookups. It also explains the unstake clock timing rule, which is meaningful behavioral context not captured by annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers on return details and edge cases. It is dense but every sentence carries useful information; minor length is justified by the breadth of returned data.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned, including staking states, pool metadata, unstake timing, and reward estimates. It also covers the optional address default and the never-staked-versus-error distinction, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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% and the single optional address parameter is fully described in the schema, including accepted formats and the server-configured default. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource: it reads a Nimiq address's staking position and enumerates exactly what is returned (active, inactive, retired, total, pool details, unstake clock, rewards estimate). This is far more specific than the title and lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like get_rewards or project_yield.

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?

It clearly establishes the read-only context and explains the key edge case: never staked returns staked:false rather than a failed lookup. However, it does not explicitly name when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_rewards, project_yield, or list_validators, leaving some routing inference to the agent.

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