stellar-vault

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns source code in a Markdown code block and does not write to disk, which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not mention any authentication needs, rate limits, or potential side effects (though likely none). The disclosure is good but not exhaustive.

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 sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's purpose, the second clarifies output format and side effects. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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?

With 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, output format, and non-destructive behavior. However, it could be more complete by explicitly stating the platform (Stellar) and perhaps a link to the ERC-4626 standard. The sibling list provides platform context indirectly. Overall, sufficient but not maximally complete.

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%, so the input schema already documents all 8 parameters with detailed descriptions. The tool description adds context by comparing to ERC-4626, which hints at the vault semantics, but does not provide additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 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 creates a 'tokenized vault that issues Fungible Token shares for an underlying asset, similar to ERC-4626'. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like 'cairo-erc20' or 'solidity-erc721', which are for different contract types. The return of source code in Markdown is also specified.

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 usage for vault-like tokenization of an underlying asset, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no guidance on when not to use it or comparison with other vault-related siblings (e.g., 'solidity-rwa'). The context signals show sibling tools, but the description itself lacks explicit usage instructions.

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