List escrowed paid trials (opportunities) on the Stellaroid Earn contract, newest first. Each ties an employer's escrowed XLM to a candidate's verified credential and moves draft -> funded -> submitted -> released/refunded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
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.
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.
