prepare_lido_wrap

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

Annotations mark it as destructive and idempotent. Description adds that it includes an approval step if needed, and explains the 1:1 share ratio, which informs about state changes and safety. Does not contradict 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?

Two sentences, each essential. First states core action and key properties, second covers the approval step. No redundancy or fluff.

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; description omits return value (presumably an unsigned transaction object). For a builder tool, mention of output type would help. Annotations provide some behavioral context but completeness is medium.

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 2 of 3 parameters with descriptions (amountStETH, approvalCap). Description adds no extra parameter info. Wallet parameter lacks description but pattern is clear. With 67% schema coverage, 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?

Clearly states the tool prepares an unsigned wstETH.wrap transaction converting stETH to wstETH, with key details (1:1 share, no DEX fee, approval step). Distinct from siblings like prepare_lido_stake/unstake/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?

Implied usage: when needing to convert stETH to wstETH. No explicit comparison to siblings (e.g., when to use prepare_lido_wrap vs prepare_lido_unwrap) or when-not-to-use. Lacks alternative guidance.

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