Stellar Vault

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 explicitly states that the tool 'does not write to disk' and returns code in a Markdown block, which are key behavioral traits for a code generator. It does not describe other potential side effects, but for a generation-only tool this is sufficient.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by the return behavior. Every sentence contributes unique information without redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 (8 parameters, nested objects) and the absence of an output schema, the description does enough by stating the output format and side-effect-free nature. The schema covers parameter details, so the description's brevity does not leave a critical gap. Slightly more context about contract generation behavior could push it higher.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 8 parameters, including nuances like decimalsOffset and explicitImplementations. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies due to high schema 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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Make') and resource ('tokenized vault'), and distinguishes it from sibling Stellar tools by emphasizing its vault nature and ERC-4626 similarity. The second sentence clarifies that it returns generated source code, 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when a tokenized vault issuing Fungible Token shares for an underlying asset is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'similar to ERC-4626' anchor and the distinct vault concept make the use case evident relative to sibling tools.

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