stellar_sep6_transfer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'initiate' implying a mutation, but fails to describe side effects, required prior steps, rate limits, or what the initiation involves (e.g., submission to anchor, transaction creation).

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 short sentence with no waste, but it is arguably too concise for a complex tool. It could be expanded with relevant context without losing conciseness.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 7 parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention return values, errors, or any workflow context (e.g., async behavior, need for prior SEP-10 auth). The agent cannot properly invoke this tool based solely on the description.

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?

All 7 parameters are documented in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score is 3 as the description does not provide extra parameter guidance or context.

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 action ('Initiate') and the resource ('SEP-6 programmatic deposit or withdrawal'), specifying verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like stellar_sep24_interactive or stellar_sep31_remittance by mentioning SEP-6, though it could further differentiate.

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 tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., SEP-10 authentication, trustlines), and no exclusions or conditions. The description lacks any decision-making context.

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