Stellaroid Earn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'static facts,' implying a read-only operation with no side effects, and lists the data categories returned. This is adequate for a simple informational tool, though it could additionally disclose that the tool never makes external calls or changes state, but such details are reasonably inferred from 'static facts.'

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, information-dense sentence. The core action ('Static facts about the Stellaroid Earn Soroban contract') is front-loaded, followed by the specific content types and a clear usage directive ('Use this first to orient'). No words are wasted, and every phrase adds value.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It states what data is returned, that it is static, and when to use it. It could be more explicit about the absence of dynamic behavior or error conditions, but given the simplicity of the tool, the description covers all essential aspects an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it.

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, so the input schema contributes nothing. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero-param tools is 4. The description does not conflict with any parameter semantics, and it implicitly clarifies that no input is required, which is useful for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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's purpose: retrieving static facts about the Stellaroid Earn Soroban contract. It specifies the exact content (contract ID, network, audit/documentation links) and explicitly contrasts with siblings by labeling itself as 'static facts,' distinguishing it from dynamic tools like get_opportunity or recent_events. The verb 'get' and resource 'contract info' are precise 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 includes an explicit usage instruction: 'Use this first to orient.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool (as a preliminary step) and implicitly signals that other tools are for subsequent, more specific queries. It provides clear context that alternatives exist for dynamic data, making the routing decision straightforward.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It does provide useful return-field details and notes that fields appear 'when the contract supplies them', indicating conditional data. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what happens on a lookup miss, or any error behavior. This is moderate transparency for a simple lookup tool.

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 consists of two tight sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence efficiently lists return fields. Every clause adds value.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what the parameter is, and what it returns. It also flags conditional field presence. It does not cover error cases or absence-of-data behavior, but given the tool's simplicity, this is near-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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by clarifying that the 'address' parameter is a Stellar address, which adds meaning beyond the schema's type and pattern. Yet it does not explain the address format beyond the pattern, nor the significance of the address in the registry, so the compensation is adequate but minimal.

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 states a specific verb ('look up'), a concrete resource ('issuer in the Stellaroid Earn on-chain trust registry'), and the lookup method ('by Stellar address'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_contract_info or get_opportunity, which target different entities. No tautology or ambiguity.

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 purpose implicitly tells an agent when to use it (need issuer info for a Stellar address), but there is no explicit when-not-to-use statement or mention of alternatives. The context is clear enough that an agent would infer usage, but it stops at implied guidance rather than explicit routing.

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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the kind of data returned (escrow status, milestone progress, credential hash), which adds value. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (though 'fetch' implies), nor does it mention what happens on invalid or missing IDs, error handling, or any prerequisites or side effects. The description gives some behavioral context but not full 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 a single, tight sentence that front-loads the main action (fetch) and immediately enumerates the key return fields. No filler words, no redundant information. It is highly efficient and well-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?

For a simple tool with one integer parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential details: what it does and what it returns. It is missing potential error scenarios (e.g., ID not found) and any prerequisite conditions, but for a basic fetch operation it is reasonably complete. Given no annotations and no output schema, it could be slightly richer, but it does not leave the agent guessing about the core use case.

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 adds context by calling the ID 'numeric' and specifying it refers to an 'escrowed paid trial', which gives semantic meaning beyond the bare integer type. However, it does not explain the ID's source, format, or any constraints beyond the schema's min/max. It provides some added meaning but not comprehensive compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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'), identifies the exact resource ('one escrowed paid trial'), and lists the specific data returned (escrow status, milestone progress, credential hash). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_opportunities (which lists) and get_contract_info (which is about contracts). The purpose is unambiguous and precise.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to fetch a single escrowed paid trial by its numeric ID. It implies that you need an ID and that this is the tool for detailed view of a specific opportunity. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the sibling list and the wording make the usage pattern obvious. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance but is not misleading.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions ordering and the state transitions, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it disclose pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. The term 'list' implies non-mutating, but it is not explicit.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose and ordering. The second sentence adds useful context about what each opportunity represents and its lifecycle, but does not veer into unnecessary detail. It is efficient without being sparse.

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 optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and some context about the items. However, it omits details about the return structure (e.g., array of objects, fields) and does not mention how the limit parameter affects results. While not critical, the description could be more complete for an agent to confidently call it.

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 clear constraints and default, but schema description coverage is 0% because the description does not mention it. The description must compensate for this gap, yet it makes no reference to limit, pagination, or result count. The agent must rely solely on the schema to understand the parameter's role.

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 with a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('escrowed paid trials (opportunities) on the Stellaroid Earn contract'), and an ordering ('newest first'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_opportunity' (single item vs. list) and 'get_contract_info' (contract metadata) without ambiguity.

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 explains what the tool returns and gives context about the lifecycle, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_opportunity' or 'recent_events'. There is no 'use this when X' or 'instead of Y' guidance, leaving the agent to infer based on the action word 'list'.

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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that events are deduplicated across Soroban RPC and Stellar Expert, which is a useful behavioral trait, and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, authentication, or what happens when no events exist, leaving gaps in transparency for a read tool.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and includes relevant specifics (data source, event types, deduplication) without any redundant or tangential information. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 parameter and no output schema, the description provides core context: what is returned (decoded events), from where (Stellaroid Earn contract), and how (deduplicated across two sources). It does not specify the exact response format, but the term 'decoded events' sets reasonable expectations. The omission of limit behavior is a minor gap given the schema's constraints.

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 its single parameter 'limit', and the description does not mention the parameter at all. While the schema provides default, min, and max constraints, the description fails to add any meaning about how 'limit' affects the result set (e.g., number of events returned). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but does not.

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 returns decoded recent contract events from a specific contract (Stellaroid Earn), lists event categories (credential registrations/verifications, escrow lifecycle, payments), and notes deduplication across two data sources. This makes the tool's purpose explicit and distinct from its siblings (e.g., get_contract_info, list_opportunities, verify_credential), which serve different functions.

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 the tool is for fetching recent events, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like list_opportunities or get_contract_info. No exclusions, prerequisites, or timing guidance are provided; the intended use is inferred from the title and content rather than clearly articulated.

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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs on Stellar testnet and returns on-chain status, issuer, timestamps, and audit links. While it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, 'verify' implies a non-mutating query, and the mention of on-chain status adds useful behavioral 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?

Two sentences with no redundancy: the first states the core function, the second lists return contents and environment. Information is front-loaded and every clause 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and the environment. It lacks explicit error handling or edge-case notes, but given the simplicity and clarity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The description explains that the 'hash' parameter is a SHA-256 certificate hash, adding meaning beyond the schema's pattern regex. This clarifies the nature of the input and how it relates to the verification process, which is valuable at 0% schema description coverage.

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 verb 'Verify' and the resource 'Stellaroid Earn credential by its SHA-256 certificate hash.' It precisely distinguishes this from siblings like get_contract_info or get_issuer, which serve different purposes. The purpose is 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 implies usage: when you have a credential hash to verify, you use this tool. It provides clear context by specifying it runs on Stellar testnet, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Given the distinct purpose, this is sufficient guidance.

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