Look up an issuer in the Stellaroid Earn on-chain trust registry by Stellar address. Returns approval status (pending/approved/suspended), name, category, website, and register/refresh dates when the contract supplies them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct concern: contract metadata, issuer lookup, individual opportunity by ID, opportunity listing, event feed, and credential verification. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, and get_opportunity vs list_opportunities is clearly differentiated by purpose.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_contract_info, get_issuer, get_opportunity, verify_credential), and list_opportunities also conforms. However, recent_events deviates from that pattern by using an adjective+noun structure instead of a verb, which is a minor inconsistency.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of querying the Stellaroid Earn contract. Each tool serves a distinct read-only function, and the count fits comfortably within the ideal range without being too sparse or excessive.
For a read-only query server, the tool surface covers all major entity types: contract info, issuers, opportunities (single and list), events, and credential verification. A minor gap is the lack of a list-issuers tool, but this does not critically hinder agent workflows given the existing lookup by address.
