stellar_sep31_remittance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency but only states the action without disclosing behavior like execution timing, failure modes, or side effects (e.g., whether a trustline is needed).

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 concise (one sentence) but lacks structure for the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 7 required). It would benefit from additional sentences to compensate for brevity.

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 tool's complexity (cross-border remittance with many parameters) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain the SEP-31 flow, preconditions, or post-conditions.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names and schema descriptions. For example, it doesn't clarify relationships between fields like senderId/receiverId or format expectations for 'fields'.

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 'Initiate' and the resource 'SEP-31 cross-border remittance payment'. It differentiates from sibling tools which cover other Stellar operations or SEP protocols.

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, and does not mention prerequisites such as needing SEP-10 authentication or SEP-12 KYC IDs, which are evident only from the schema.

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