prepare_marinade_stake

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: transaction is unsigned, uses marinade.deposit, no ephemeral keypair, ATA auto-created with reclaimable rent, durable nonce required, blind-sign on Ledger. No contradiction with annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false).

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 brief yet comprehensive: three sentences covering purpose, key behavioral details, and prerequisites. No redundant information; every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the complexity (durable nonce, Ledger blind-sign, ATA rent) and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: operation, prerequisites, side effects, and user actions. Completely informs the agent for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant context: wallet funds deposit and receives mSOL, requires nonce init and enough SOL for rent+tx fee; amountSol is human-readable with rounding. This complements the schema effectively.

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 builds an unsigned Marinade stake transaction, depositing SOL and receiving mSOL. It uses specific verb 'deposit' and resource 'SOL into Marinade', distinguishing it from sibling staking tools like prepare_jito_stake and prepare_lido_stake.

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 explicitly requires a durable nonce via prepare_solana_nonce_init, warns about blind-sign on Ledger, and mentions automatic ATA creation. While it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, the prerequisites and wallet setup conditions are clearly stated.

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