prepare_lido_stake

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint: true and idempotentHint: true. The description adds valuable context: the transaction is unsigned, the value field contains the ETH amount, and the underlying mechanism (stETH.submit). This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the tool's role as a preparation step, not execution.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a clarifying detail about the transaction's value field. No wasted words.

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 tool has 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose and key behavioral trait (unsigned). It could mention prerequisites (e.g., needing ETH, wallet address format) or the output format, but for a preparation tool with good annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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 description, wallet does not). The tool description mentions that the tx's value field is the ETH amount, reinforcing amountEth's role, but it does not explain the wallet parameter (e.g., it is the staker's address). No additional semantic value is added for parameters beyond the 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 tool's purpose: building an unsigned Lido stake transaction that wraps ETH into stETH via stETH.submit. It uses a specific verb ('Build'), identifies the resource ('Lido stake transaction'), and distinguishes from siblings like prepare_lido_unstake and prepare_lido_wrap.

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 implies usage for staking ETH via Lido but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., prepare_staking_yield or other staking tools). No prerequisites, exclusions, or context when not to use are given.

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