prepare_native_stake_delegate

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds critical context: funding includes rent-exempt seed, authority is user's wallet (no handoff), blind-sign default on Ledger, deterministic address derivation. 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?

Single dense paragraph, front-loaded with main purpose, then details. Each sentence contributes info, but could benefit from better structure (e.g., bullet points). Efficient, but slightly packed.

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?

Covers most aspects (funding, authority, nonce, refusal, blind-sign, validator selection) but lacks output format description (e.g., what the unsigned tx looks like) and post-processing steps (sign and send via other tools). For a complex tool, this is a gap.

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% with descriptions, but the description adds valuable nuance: wallet must have durable nonce and enough SOL for stake + rent + fee, validator is vote account (not identity), amountSol includes rent-exempt. Adds meaning beyond schema.

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 verb ('Build an unsigned native-stake-program tx'), the resource ('fresh stake account'), and the action ('creates... and delegates'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like prepare_native_stake_deactivate and prepare_native_stake_withdraw by mentioning the refusal logic when a stake account already exists.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (initial delegation), when not to (if stake account exists, use deactivate/withdraw), and prerequisites (durable nonce required, wallet must have enough SOL, call list_solana_validators first). Provides clear context and exclusions.

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