create_sp_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it delivers a critical behavioral disclosure: the tool does not execute the account creation but 'returns an unsigned transaction (CBOR hex) for client-side signing.' This tells the agent the operation has no immediate on-chain effect. It omits failure modes (e.g., account already exists) and fee prerequisites, but the signing requirement is the most important behavior and is clearly disclosed.

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, zero filler. The main purpose is front-loaded and the critical return-behavior detail follows immediately. Both sentences earn their 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 3-parameter create tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, what it requires, and what it returns (unsigned CBOR transaction). The signing-flow disclosure compensates for the missing output schema. Minor gaps remain around post-signing steps and error conditions, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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%, so the schema already documents address, asset, and amount, including units and the enum. The description adds modest context by framing asset/amount as the deposit that opens the account, but it does not enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') tied to a distinct resource ('stability pool account') and the mechanism ('by depositing iAssets'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like close_sp_account, adjust_sp_account, and the get_sp_account_by_owner read tools, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and resource: use this when creating a new stability pool account. However, the description never explicitly states when not to use it or names alternatives such as adjust_sp_account for existing accounts. The guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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