get_staking_rewards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: the estimation nature, use of current APR as proxy, and explicit warning that it is not an on-chain query. This adds behavioral insight beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundant words. Every sentence adds value: the first defines what and period, the second clarifies limitation. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey behavior and limitations. It does so by explaining the estimation method and what it is not. It could optionally mention the return format (e.g., a numeric value), but the current completeness is sufficient for a simple estimation tool.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (wallet regex, period enum/default). Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions period options and APR proxy, providing slight context about calculation basis but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 tool estimates staking rewards over specified periods using current APR as a proxy. It explicitly distinguishes itself as an estimate, not an on-chain query, which clarifies its scope and differentiates it from tools like get_staking_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?

The description explains when to use the tool (for estimating rewards based on APR) and what it is not (on-chain query). However, it does not address when to avoid it in favor of siblings like estimate_staking_yield or get_staking_positions, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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