stellar-fungible

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it returns source code in a Markdown code block and does not write to disk. This is adequate for a code generation tool, though additional details on any authorization or network calls could improve transparency.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose and standard, the second describes output and side-effects. Every word contributes value.

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 provides enough context for the tool's core function and output format. Given the 12 parameters and no output schema, additional guidance on common parameter combinations or usage examples could enhance completeness, but it is sufficient for selection.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself contains detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline score for high coverage.

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 it creates a fungible token following the Stellar Fungible Token Standard (SEP-41), similar to ERC-20. The name 'stellar-fungible' and mention of platform distinct it from siblings like 'solidity-erc20' or 'stellar-non-fungible'.

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 implies use for Stellar fungible token creation. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context of sibling names and the platform-specific description provide sufficient guidance.

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