stellar_sep12_customer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the basic read/write nature. It does not disclose behavioral aspects like data sensitivity, authorization requirements beyond the token, rate limits, or response format.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the basic action. However, it could be slightly expanded to include important context without losing conciseness, such as the role of the token.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and the complexity of KYC operations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain typical KYC fields, response structure, or how to handle errors, leaving the agent underinformed for correct 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter names and types. It does not clarify the relationship between method and kycFields (e.g., that kycFields is only relevant for PUT), nor does it explain the token's origin or format.

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 specifies the tool performs GET or PUT operations on customer KYC data for an Anchor's SEP-12 KYC_SERVER. However, it does not differentiate from sibling SEP tools like stellar_sep10_auth or stellar_sep24_interactive, which could cause confusion about when to use each.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use GET vs PUT, or that a SEP-10 token is required. The description offers no context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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