prepare_lido_stake

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

Description reveals that the output is an unsigned transaction and specifies the contract interaction (stETH.submit). Annotations indicate destructive (writes) and idempotent, which the description aligns with. No contradictions.

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, 22 words. The first sentence states the core action, the second clarifies the value field. No unnecessary words.

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 is present, and the description does not describe the return value format or structure. For an unsigned transaction builder, the agent may need to know the transaction object shape. The description is sufficient but not fully complete.

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 has 50% coverage (amountEth has a description; wallet lacks one). The description adds that amountEth is human-readable (but schema already states that). No new semantics for wallet beyond the pattern.

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 explicitly states the tool's action: building an unsigned Lido stake transaction that wraps ETH into stETH via stETH.submit. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like prepare_lido_unstake or prepare_lido_unwrap.

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 implies the tool is for staking ETH via Lido, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., other staking protocols). No when-not guidance is given.

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