get_staking_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It effectively implies a read-only operation by saying 'Get' and refers to a state snapshot, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, no authorization requirements, or any other behavioral traits, leaving the agent to infer safety from the verb.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the resource and the key returned fields. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only state getter, the description covers the essential information: the resource and the returned values. With no output schema and no annotations, a bit more context about units, freshness, or side effects would improve completeness, but the tool's low complexity makes the current description reasonably adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description does not need to add parameter detail, and the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource ('Get the current INDY staking manager state') and names the returned data fields (total stake, snapshot ada, output ref). It is clear and concrete, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_staking_positions or get_sp_account_by_owner, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many staking-related siblings, no stated conditions, and no exclusions. The description only implies that this tool is for reading the current staking manager state, which is weak given the large sibling set.

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