Decoded recent contract events (credential registrations/verifications, escrow lifecycle, payments) from the Stellaroid Earn contract, deduplicated across Soroban RPC and the Stellar Expert indexer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
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.
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.
