prepare_marinade_unstake_immediate

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it's an unsigned transaction, immediate, involves a fee, requires durable nonce and blind-sign on Ledger. No contradiction with annotations; destructiveHint is appropriate.

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 concise, packing essential information into a few sentences. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently conveys constraints and alternatives.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, constraints, and alternatives. It does not explain the return value format, but as a 'prepare' tool, the output (unsigned tx) is implied. The context is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that wallet must have an initialized durable-nonce account and mSOL position, and that amountMSol is human-readable with rounding down.

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 immediate liquid-unstake transaction, burning mSOL for SOL via Marinade's liquidity pool. It explicitly distinguishes from delayed unstake, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: for immediate unstaking via liquidity pool, and contrasts with delayed unstake which is unsuitable for Ledger-only signing. It also notes required durable nonce and Ledger constraints.

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