prepare_rocketpool_stake

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), description reveals it calls deposit() payable, mints rETH, preflights getMaximumDepositAmount(), and builds an unsigned transaction. 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, front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy. Every sentence provides essential information.

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?

As a transaction builder, description explains the action and preflight behavior. Could be more explicit about the return value (unsigned tx data), but 'Build an unsigned transaction' sufficiently indicates output. No output schema, so description carries the burden well.

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 50%: amountEth has a detailed description (human-readable ETH, example, min/capacity notes), wallet only has pattern. Description adds context for amountEth but not wallet. Compensates reasonably for the parameter description gap.

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 clearly states it builds an unsigned Rocket Pool stake transaction via deposit() payable to mint rETH. Specific verb+resource (prepare, stake) and distinguishes from siblings like prepare_rocketpool_unstake and other staking protocols.

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 Ethereum mainnet only and that rETH on L2s must be bridged, not deposit-and-mint. Also mentions preflight check for pool availability, guiding when the tool should be used.

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