prepare_lido_unstake

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing the inclusion of an approval step if needed, which affects transaction construction. However, it does not explain that the resulting transaction must be signed and sent separately.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by key technical detail. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity of a DeFi transaction builder and the lack of an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., an unsigned transaction object) and mention that it needs to be signed and broadcast subsequently. The current description omits this, leaving the agent to infer the output and next steps.

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 input schema provides descriptions for amountStETH and approvalCap, covering 67% of parameters. The description reinforces the approval logic by mentioning the approve step, linking to the approvalCap parameter. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema, especially since the wallet parameter is not described.

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 Lido withdrawal request transaction, specifying the underlying function (requestWithdrawals) and that it includes an approve step. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like prepare_lido_stake or prepare_lido_unwrap.

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 unstaking stETH via Lido, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like prepare_lido_unwrap. No exclusions or context about prerequisites are provided.

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