stellar_fund_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the operation's effect (crediting 10,000 testnet XLM), the network (testnet), and the mechanism (Friendbot), which is sufficient for such a simple tool. It does not mention Friendbot rate limits or behavior for already-funded accounts, but these are not critical for correct invocation.

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?

One sentence with no fluff; the key information—action, network, amount, and mechanism—is presented directly. High information density with zero wasted words.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description plus schema is fully sufficient: an agent knows what to pass, why, and what will happen. There are no hidden complex behaviors or sibling ambiguities.

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 input schema fully documents the one parameter and its format, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter detail, but none is needed for a single publicKey argument.

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 names a specific action ('Fund'), a specific resource ('Stellar testnet account'), an exact amount (10,000 testnet XLM), and the mechanism (Friendbot). It is unmistakably distinct from all sibling tools, none of which mention funding, Friendbot, or testnet XLM.

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 clearly situates the tool for testnet account funding via Friendbot, so an agent knows the network context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear among the large sibling set.

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