Stellaroid Earn

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool provides 'static facts,' implying a read-only, side-effect-free operation, and enumerates the returned data. Yet it does not explicitly confirm no side effects or describe response structure, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 tightly focused sentences: the first states the purpose and content, the second gives usage guidance. There is no wasted text, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple no-parameter getter with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it returns and when to use it. It could specify the return format more precisely, but the listed categories (contract ID, network, links) provide sufficient context.

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 takes zero parameters, making the schema trivial. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed; the baseline score 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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving static facts about the Stellaroid Earn Soroban contract, listing specific data types (contract ID, network, audit links). The phrase 'Static facts' distinguishes it from dynamic sibling tools and the orientation hint differentiates it from get_issuer and get_opportunity.

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 says 'Use this first to orient,' providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('look up') and lists return fields, but does not mention error handling for unknown addresses, authorization requirements, or any side effects. For a simple read-only lookup, this is borderline adequate but leaves some behavioral details unspecified.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, then lists the specific return values. It contains no redundant or extraneous 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the key return fields and the lookup mechanism. It lacks explicit edge-case behavior (e.g., not found, invalid address) but is otherwise complete for a straightforward lookup tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by Stellar address', which aligns with the schema's pattern for the only parameter, but does not add further meaning beyond what the schema constrains. The parameter itself is simple and self-explanatory, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'look up' and clearly identifies the resource as an issuer in the Stellaroid Earn on-chain trust registry, accessed by Stellar address. It also lists the returned fields (approval status, name, category, website), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_contract_info or recent_events.

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 usage context is clear: use this tool when you need issuer details from the trust registry by address. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough to imply when to use it.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly disclose behavior such as error handling, authentication needs, or whether the operation has side effects. It does describe what data will be returned, which adds some context.

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 with every phrase earning its place. It states the action, the target, the identifier, and the key returned fields without repetition or filler.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose and the returned data categories. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning not-found behavior or the exact response format, but the given information is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by clarifying that the id parameter is the numeric ID of the escrowed paid trial and that there is exactly one such entity. It does not detail ID source or format beyond 'numeric', but for a single required integer parameter this is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource: one escrowed paid trial by numeric ID. It distinguishes from siblings like list_opportunities (list vs. single) and verify_credential (credential hash vs. opportunity), and it names the included data.

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?

Clear context is provided: use this tool when you have a specific numeric ID for an escrowed paid trial and need its escrow status, milestone progress, and credential hash. It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_opportunities, but the single-item scope is apparent.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the ordering behavior ('newest first') and explains the lifecycle of opportunities (draft -> funded -> submitted -> released/refunded), which is useful context beyond a simple list operation. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, though 'List' implies it.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently adds domain context without fluff. Every sentence 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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the list contains, the ordering, and the underlying lifecycle. It does not detail the return fields, but the description of the opportunity semantics helps the agent understand the data structure.

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 schema has one parameter (limit) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention limit at all. The schema itself provides type, default, and bounds, making the parameter self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the low coverage as required by the rubric.

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's purpose: listing escrowed paid trials (opportunities) on the Stellaroid Earn contract, with a specific ordering (newest first). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_opportunity (single item) and recent_events by focusing on opportunity listings.

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 implies when to use the tool (to list opportunities) but does not explicitly reference alternatives or state when not to use it. It provides clear context about what the tool returns, but lacks exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description adds context about deduplication across two sources and decoding, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects, error behavior, or how the limit affects results, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and unique behavior without redundancy.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main function but omits parameter semantics and return format details. It's serviceable but not fully 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the 'limit' parameter, and the description does not mention it at all. There is no explanation of what 'limit' controls or how it behaves, leaving the agent without guidance.

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's function: decoding recent contract events from a specific contract, and lists event categories. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on contract info, issuers, opportunities, and verification.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description implies it's for recent events but doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what it returns (status, issuer, timestamps, audit links), mentions it runs on Stellar testnet, and enumerates possible status values. It does not explicitly declare the operation non-mutating, but 'verify' implies read-only, and the added network context adds 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?

The description is three succinct sentences, front-loaded with the action. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second lists outputs, and the third notes the network. No redundant or vague 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?

Given the simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It covers input semantics, output fields, environment, and even enumerates status types. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly without missing critical information.

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 provides only a pattern with no description. The description adds meaning by specifying the parameter is a SHA-256 certificate hash, clarifying what the 'hash' property represents. Since there is only one parameter and coverage is 0%, the description compensates 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 uses a specific verb 'Verify' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'Stellaroid Earn credential' with the input being its 'SHA-256 certificate hash.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_contract_info, get_issuer, etc.) by targeting a unique action and object.

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 implies usage context: use when you have a credential hash and need on-chain status. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear and distinct from sibling tools, so it provides solid context without being explicit about when-not-to-use.

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