Stellaroid Earn

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavior: static facts (no side effects), read-only, returns contract ID, network, and links. No 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 sentences, front-loaded with 'Static facts,' concise and clear. No waste.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description completely covers what the tool does and how to use it. Simple tool, complete info.

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?

No parameters exist; baseline 4 for 0 params. Description adds no param info, but none is needed.

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?

Describes specific verb (getting) and resource (static facts about Stellaroid Earn Soroban contract) and lists contents: contract ID, network, links. Distinguishes from siblings by stating 'Use this first to orient.'

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this first to orient.' Implies it should be used before other tools for initial context. No when-not needed for a starting point.

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?

Discloses return values (approval status, name, category, website) and that it's a lookup. No annotations provided, but the description implies a read-only operation. Could explicitly state lack of side effects.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, no wasted words.

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 simple tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains what it does and what it returns. No missing information 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?

Schema defines the only parameter 'address' with a regex pattern. Description reinforces it's a Stellar address. Although schema coverage is 0%, the single parameter is well-documented in the schema and the description adds registry context.

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?

Description clearly states it looks up an issuer by Stellar address and lists the returned fields (approval status, name, category, website). It distinguishes from siblings like get_contract_info which deals with contracts, not issuers.

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 or alternatives. The purpose is clear but lacks when-not-to-use context or comparison with 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?

No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral disclosure. It describes what is fetched but does not explicitly state read-only nature or any side effects. Acceptable but could be more transparent.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and resource, no wasted words.

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 no output schema, description adequately lists included fields. Covers the essential context for a simple fetch by ID, though could mention missing details like error handling or ID validity.

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 0%, but description adds minimal context: 'numeric ID' (redundant with schema type) and that the resource is an 'escrowed paid trial'. Does not explain constraints or ID meaning beyond that.

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?

Clearly specifies the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'one escrowed paid trial', with details on what is included (escrow status, milestone progress, credential hash). Distinguishes from sibling 'list_opportunities' which is a listing tool.

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?

Implies use when needing details of a specific opportunity by ID, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide context on 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.

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the list is returned newest first and mentions the lifecycle stages. However, it does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is needed, or any side effects. For a list tool, the description is minimally adequate.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence delivers the core purpose and sort order, the second adds valuable lifecycle context. Every sentence serves a clear function.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values. While the lifecycle description hints at possible fields, the exact fields returned (e.g., employer, candidate, credential, status, dates) are not specified. The parameter 'limit' is undocumented. The description lacks sufficient detail for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.

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 for the single parameter 'limit'. The description does not mention the parameter, its default, range, or purpose. This is a critical gap that leaves the agent uninformed about how to control pagination or result size.

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 lists escrowed paid trials on the Stellaroid Earn contract, newest first. It distinguishes this list operation from the sibling tool 'get_opportunity' by specifying multiple items and the lifecycle stages (draft -> funded -> submitted -> released/refunded).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for retrieving all opportunities, but no guidance on when to use 'get_opportunity' or other sibling tools. Context is provided by the lifecycle description but no exclusions or recommendations.

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 bears the full burden. It reveals deduplication across Soroban RPC and Stellar Expert indexer, and decodes raw events. However, it does not disclose read-only nature, authentication needs, or potential destruction.

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 tool's purpose, data sources, and deduplication logic. Every part is informative with no 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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the event types, sources, and deduplication. Missing details include the ordering (presumably time-descending) and pagination behavior beyond the limit, but overall 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 single parameter 'limit' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain its meaning beyond the schema's default/min/max. No context is added about ordering or behavior.

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 returns 'decoded recent contract events' from the Stellaroid Earn contract, listing specific event types (credential registrations/verifications, escrow lifecycle, payments) and mentioning deduplication across two sources. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_contract_info or verify_credential.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or limitations. It only mentions 'recent' but does not define the time window or filtering options.

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 provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the tool runs on Stellar testnet and returns on-chain status, issuer, timestamps, and links. However, it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential errors, or side effects.

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: first defines purpose and method, second lists outputs and environment. No wasted words, front-loaded with key action.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (status, issuer, timestamps, links) and environment (testnet). Could mention error handling or authentication, but overall complete for the complexity.

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 single parameter 'hash' has a schema pattern but no description. The tool description adds meaning by specifying it must be a SHA-256 certificate hash, which goes beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates.

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 that the tool verifies a Stellaroid Earn credential via a SHA-256 certificate hash. It specifies the resource ('credential') and action ('verify'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_contract_info' or 'get_issuer'.

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 by providing the input (hash) and output details. It does not explicitly state when to use or when not, but the context makes it clear this is for credential verification. Missing explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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