stellar_get_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry all behavioral disclosure. It only states that details are fetched, implying read-only, but does not mention rate limits, caching, error handling (e.g., what happens if account doesn't exist), or the response shape beyond a few fields.

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-formed sentence. It front-loads the verb and resource, then lists key output components. No wasted words 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?

For a simple getter tool with one parameter, the description covers the core functionality. However, it lacks details on error cases, pagination (if any), or the exact structure of the response. Despite the lack of an output schema, the description could more fully set expectations.

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 clear documentation for the single parameter (public key). The description adds context about what is returned (balances, signers, etc.) but does not add technical details beyond the schema, meriting the baseline score.

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 fetches account details and lists specific components (balances, signers, flags, minimum balance). The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'account details' are specific. Among siblings that include many transaction-oriented tools, this stands out as a read-only retrieval tool.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like stellar_get_account_history or other getter tools. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., account must exist) or situations where this tool is preferred.

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