stellar_sep10_auth

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, authentication requirements (e.g., need for secret key), potential network calls, rate limits, or error conditions. The signing flow is vaguely described as 'challenge signing' without explaining the steps.

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, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and is highly efficient.

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?

The description states the return value (JWT token), which is useful given no output schema. However, for a complex authentication flow like SEP-10, more detail about the signing process or expected inputs would improve completeness. It is minimally adequate.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 verb 'Perform', the specific protocol 'SEP-10 challenge signing flow', and the output 'return JWT token'. It is concise and distinguishes this tool from the many sibling Stellar tools by naming the SEP-10 standard.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., needing a Stellar account or secret key), and no exclusion criteria. The agent is left without context on when this auth flow is appropriate.

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