prepare_rocketpool_stake

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds that it builds an unsigned transaction, checks deposit pool capacity, and is mainnet-only. These details enrich the behavioral understanding beyond 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?

Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence conveys core purpose, second adds critical constraints. Efficiently structured.

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?

Covers core purpose and key constraints. Does not explicitly state that output is an unsigned transaction ready for signing/broadcasting, but this may be understood from the tool category. No output schema, so description could be slightly more complete.

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 description coverage is 50% (amountEth has description, wallet does not). The amountEth description is detailed with examples and constraints. Wallet parameter lacks description, and the tool description does not compensate fully. Overall adequate but not excellent.

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 the tool builds an unsigned Rocket Pool stake transaction using RocketDepositPool.deposit() to mint rETH. Differentiates from sibling prepare_rocketpool_unstake and other staking prepare tools by specifying the protocol and function.

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?

Specifies when to use (Ethereum mainnet only) and explicitly excludes L2s. Mentions preflight checks for deposit pool status. No explicit comparisons to alternatives like Lido or Marinade, but the context is clear enough.

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