Stellar Fungible

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the output format (Markdown code block) and that it does not write to disk. This is a key behavioral trait that prevents assumptions about file-side effects. The description could mention additional behavior like input validation, but it is not essential for this type of tool.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and then providing output and side-effect details. Every clause adds value, with no repetition of schema content or filler. This is a model of efficient description writing.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the essential behavior: what it generates and what it returns. The schema fully documents parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. The only minor gap is that the return format is described but not explicitly tied to a success/failure scenario, but this is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 12 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema documents the parameters thoroughly. The description adds only the high-level ERC-20 analogy, which reinforces the meaning of standard token options but does not add per-parameter detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 generates a fungible token contract per SEP-41, distinguishing it from sibling non-fungible, stablecoin, and EVM/Cairo variants. The phrase 'Returns the source code of the generated contract' clarifies that it is a code generator, not a deployer, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage context is implied through the tool name 'stellar-fungible' and the SEP-41 compatibility reference, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like solidity-erc20 or cairo-erc20. The 'similar to ERC-20' analogy helps with familiarity but not with selection criteria.

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