prepare_lido_unwrap

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

Description discloses that it 'burns wstETH from the caller's balance' (destructive) and 'No approval needed', which aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). Adds value by explaining the burn mechanism beyond what annotations provide.

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, no redundant words. First sentence states purpose, second adds crucial behavioral detail. Highly efficient.

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?

For a preparation tool that builds an unsigned transaction (no output schema), the description covers purpose, mechanism, and key behavioral traits. It is complete given the tool's complexity and context signals.

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 covers 50% of parameters (amountWstETH with detailed description). Description reinforces that amount is human-readable, not raw wei. The wallet parameter is implied as the caller's balance. Description adds context but does not significantly expand 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?

Description clearly states the action: 'Build an unsigned wstETH.unwrap transaction that converts wstETH back into stETH'. It specifies the verb (build), resource (unsigned transaction), and distinguishes from sibling tools like prepare_lido_wrap by mentioning unwrapping.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like prepare_lido_unstake (stETH to ETH). It mentions 'No approval needed' but no direct comparison. The context is implied by the specific operation.

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