prepare_jito_stake

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent nature, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: no ephemeral keypair (Ledger-compatible), ATA auto-creation with reclaimable rent, durable nonce requirement, blind-sign warning, and future roadmap for unstaking. No contradiction with 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 a single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core action. While efficient, it could benefit from bullets for caveats (nonce, blind-sign, ATA rent) to improve readability. Still, every sentence adds value.

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, and the description does not specify the structure of the returned unsigned transaction (e.g., format, fields). This leaves a gap for the agent regarding what to expect from the tool's output. Annotations help with safety but not return value.

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 covers both parameters with detailed descriptions. The description adds practical context (wallet must have nonce and enough SOL for deposit+rent+tx fee; amountSol is human-readable with 9 decimals), enriching the schema's meaning.

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?

Description clearly states the tool builds an unsigned Jito stake-pool deposit transaction, specifying the program, instruction, and what the user receives (jitoSOL). It distinguishes itself from other staking tools by naming Jito and providing unique details (no ephemeral keypair, Ledger-compatible).

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 prerequisites (durable nonce must be initialized), warns about blind-signing on Ledger, and mentions that unstaking is not yet available. However, it does not contrast with alternatives like native staking or other LSTs, so the agent must infer use cases.

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