prepare_marinade_stake

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

The description goes well beyond annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint) by detailing the SDK call, the signer (user wallet, no ephemeral keypair), automatic ATA creation with reclaimable rent cost, and the blind-sign warning. No contradiction with annotations; it enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's side effects and prerequisites.

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?

Five sentences each serving a purpose: purpose, SDK detail, ATA rent, nonce requirement, blind-sign guidance. Slightly verbose but well-structured and front-loaded. Could combine nonce and blind-sign into a single prerequisite sentence, but overall 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?

Lacks explicit description of the return value (expected transaction data). While typical for 'prepare' tools, providing output format (e.g., base64-encoded transaction) would improve completeness. Other aspects like constraints and side effects are well covered.

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?

Both parameters have explicit schema descriptions with 100% coverage. The description adds critical context: wallet must have nonce and sufficient funds for deposit+rent+ fee, and amountSol is human-readable with rounding down to lamports. This complements the schema without redundancy.

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?

Clearly states it builds an unsigned Marinade stake transaction by depositing SOL to receive mSOL. The verb 'prepare' combined with the specific staking protocol and asset identifies the resource distinctly. Sibling tools like prepare_jito_stake and prepare_lido_stake address different protocols, making this unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly requires a durable nonce initialized via prepare_solana_nonce_init, else the tool errors. It also provides blind-sign guidance for Ledger users. Does not mention alternatives for staking, but the context of Marinade is clear. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use beyond the nonce requirement.

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