prepare_marinade_unstake_immediate

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

Adds context beyond annotations: mentions 0.3% fee (varies with pool depth), blind-sign on Ledger, and durable nonce requirement. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but description reinforces this. However, idempotentHint=true is not addressed (burning mSOL is not inherently idempotent), slightly reducing transparency.

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?

Reasonably concise; main action is front-loaded. The parenthetical about delayed-unstake being a follow-up is slightly extraneous but not wasteful. Could be trimmed slightly while keeping clarity.

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 complexity and available annotations/schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: flow, fee, nonce, Ledger constraints, and distinction from alternatives. No output schema is present, but return values are implied (unsigned tx). Sibling tools are numerous, but this tool is clearly differentiated.

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 100% of parameters, and description adds value: explains that amountMSol is human-readable and builder rounds down, and wallet must have durable-nonce account and mSOL position. This supplements the schema descriptions well.

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 it builds an unsigned Marinade IMMEDIATE liquid-unstake tx, burning mSOL to receive SOL via liquidity pool. It distinguishes from delayed-unstake by name and context, making the purpose 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 explains when to use this (immediate unstake) and when not (delayed-unstake/OrderUnstake), including the limitation of delayed-unstake with Ledger signing. It also notes durable nonce requirement and same constraints as prepare_marinade_stake, providing clear guidance.

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