calculate_staking_rewards

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

No annotations are present, so the description must bear full responsibility. It only states the core function without explaining compounding implications, assumptions, or output behavior. Lacks detail on how rewards are computed.

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, efficiently written. The first explains the tool, the second provides a cross-reference. No wasted words, though the return note is unclear.

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?

Despite having a full input schema and output schema, the description fails to clarify the return value (suggests it returns initial_amount, which is misleading). It does not explain the behavioral nuances or output meaning, making it incomplete for complex financial calculations.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'optional compounding' is already covered by the enum). No significant value added.

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 calculates staking rewards with optional compounding, and references list_bundles for related crypto calculators, which helps distinguish it from other tools. However, the return value note is confusing and incomplete.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The mention of list_bundles is a weak implicit hint.

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