stellar_get_ledger_meta

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It notably reveals that responses are bounded, include truncation metadata, and may be cached on disk with a TTL. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the basic fetch semantics. It could further disclose failure behavior or caching invalidation details, but the provided information is already substantial.

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 with no filler. The primary purpose and source are front-loaded, followed by the fallback, bound behavior, and caching. Every clause adds value and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 covers the source strategy, fallback behavior, output bounding, truncation metadata, and disk caching. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the response shape or error conditions would improve completeness, but the current description gives an agent enough context to understand the tool's behavior and side effects.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add new parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing the truncation concept mentioned in maxXdrCharsPerField. This matches the baseline expectation for 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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('closed ledger header metadata'), and names the primary source (Horizon) with a fallback (Soroban RPC getLedgers). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like stellar_get_transaction_meta and stellar_get_account, which target different data. The inclusion of the fallback path adds precision without ambiguity.

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 explains the operational path (Horizon primary, RPC fallback) but does not state when a caller should choose this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it, nor any comparison with sibling tools such as stellar_get_transaction_meta. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name and resource type.

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