get_solana_staking_positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and safe traits. The description adds detail on return sections (e.g., mSolPrice, activation status) but does not reveal new behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with 'READ-ONLY', and efficiently covers three sections. However, it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the three return sections with details (mSolPrice, activation status). It also references the parallel EVM tool, making it complete for an agent to understand what to expect.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with a detailed description of the 'wallet' parameter, including the pattern and what it returns. The tool description adds little new semantics beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states it enumerates Solana staking positions, listing specific protocols (Marinade mSOL, Jito jitoSOL) and native staking. It also notes it is parallel to EVM's get_staking_positions, distinguishing it from siblings.

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 provides context as a single full-view tool, with mention of underlying module functions for individual sections. It implicitly distinguishes from EVM staking tools via 'Parallel to EVM's get_staking_positions', but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or direct alternatives.

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