get_solana_staking_positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description goes beyond these by detailing the exact return sections (Marinade, Jito, native stakes) and including specifics like activation status and validator vote accounts, which are not captured in 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?

The description is front-loaded with 'READ-ONLY' and immediately states the purpose. It is moderately detailed (about 100 words) with no superfluous sentences. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 a single parameter with comprehensive schema description, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns with specifics on each section, including a parallel to EVM staking. No gaps identified.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the wallet parameter fully described including regex pattern and explanation. The tool description does not add new semantics for the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description starts with 'READ-ONLY — enumerate a Solana wallet's liquid-staking... and native stake-account positions,' clearly specifying the verb (enumerate), resource (Solana wallet's staking positions), and scope (three specific sections). It distinguishes itself from EVM's get_staking_positions and related sibling tools by mentioning it is a single call returning the full view.

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 states 'Single tool call returning the full view; individual sections are separately readable via the underlying module functions for portfolio integration,' providing guidance on when to use this comprehensive view versus more specific underlying functions. It does not explicitly list when NOT to use it but offers clear alternatives.

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