Indexer: Stargate token rewards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that rewards are earned over time and not claimable until end of cycle, which is valuable behavioral context not in annotations. It does not contradict 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, zero waste. First sentence delivers purpose and critical behavioral nuance; second sentence enumerates supported features. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool has 7 parameters (2 required), full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage distinction, and key options like periodType (with values), validator filter, and pagination. It also cross-references a sibling tool for token lookup. No gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning: it lists periodType enum values explicitly ('CYCLE, DAY, WEEK, MONTH, YEAR, ALL') which the schema does not enumerate, and clarifies tokenId is 'NOT the level name' and points to getStargateTokens. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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 provides an 'Overview of rewards earned by a Stargate NFT delegation to a validator over time.' It distinguishes itself from the related 'claimed' rewards and from other Stargate tools by focusing on token rewards. The purpose is specific and 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?

The description explicitly notes this is 'Not the same as “claimed” (claimable only at end of cycle),' giving a clear when-not-to-use context. It also references getStargateTokens for finding token IDs, indicating a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly compare against all sibling tools like getStargateTotalVetStaked, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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