List Stellar assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-data profile is covered. The description adds that entries carry code and issuer, but says nothing about freshness, whether the catalog is live-fetched, result size, or ordering — the kind of context that would matter for a reference-data listing.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the resource definition front-loaded and the downstream usage instruction second. 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 simple two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys what an entry looks like (code + issuer) and how to use it, which is most of what an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around result volume and whether the list is filtered by network by default.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the network default and the verified_only default. The description adds no meaning beyond that — it never mentions network scoping or the verified filter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 identifies the resource precisely as the Stellar asset catalog and states what each entry contains (codes and issuers), with concrete examples (USDC, EURC by Circle). The listing verb is only implied by 'catalog', but the resource is unmistakable and clearly distinct from payment-oriented siblings.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent how to consume the result: feed an entry's code and issuer into create_payment_link's asset_code and asset_issuer. That is a strong, actionable usage link to a named sibling. It stops short of stating when not to use it or how to choose between networks, but no real alternative tool exists.

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