create_sp_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and successfully discloses the critical trait that it 'Returns an unsigned transaction (CBOR hex) for client-side signing'—alerting the agent that execution is deferred and requires cryptographic signing. Missing minor details like idempotency behavior or fees.

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 with zero waste: first states purpose, second states return value. Front-loaded with the action verb and contains no filler or redundant information.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description compensates by specifying the return format (unsigned CBOR hex transaction). All 3 required parameters are documented in the schema. Would benefit from mentioning error conditions (e.g., if account already exists) but sufficient for tool invocation.

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%, with all three parameters (address, asset, amount) fully documented including enums and formats. The description mentions 'depositing iAssets' which aligns with the asset parameter, but adds no syntax, validation rules, or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description provides specific verb (Create), resource (stability pool account), and mechanism (depositing iAssets). The word 'new' effectively distinguishes this from sibling adjust_sp_account (modification) and close_sp_account (termination), while the depositing action distinguishes from read-only get_* tools.

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 term 'new' implies this is for initial account creation versus modification, but there are no explicit when-to-use guidelines, prerequisites (e.g., requiring existing iAsset balance), or explicit references to alternatives like adjust_sp_account for existing accounts.

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