prepare_lido_wrap

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context that the transaction is unsigned and includes an approval step if needed, which aligns with the annotations. No contradiction found; the description provides useful behavioral detail beyond the 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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and key details (1:1 ratio, no fee, approval step). No unnecessary 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?

The description clearly states the output is an unsigned transaction and explains the approval step. While no explicit return format is given, this is common for 'prepare' tools. The description adequately covers the tool's role without missing critical context.

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 already provides detailed descriptions for amountStETH and approvalCap, covering the human-readable format and approval cap options. Wallet lacks a description but is implied by the pattern. The tool description adds behavioral context about the approval step but is not needed for parameter semantics. Overall, schema coverage is high and descriptions are clear.

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 wstETH.wrap transaction converting stETH to wstETH, with 1:1 share ratio, no DEX fee, and includes an approval step. It distinguishes itself from siblings like prepare_lido_stake and prepare_lido_unwrap by focusing on the wrap operation.

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 explains when to use the tool (to wrap stETH to wstETH) and mentions the conversion from rebasing to non-rebasing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives like using a DEX.

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