stellar_sep10_auth

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 mentions that the tool performs a 'challenge signing flow' but does not explain how the challenge is obtained, what key material is used for signing, whether network calls to the anchor are made, or whether any state changes or security-sensitive actions occur. The description is high-level and omits important operational details.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and output, and every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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?

Despite having only two parameters and full schema coverage, the tool performs a multi-step authentication flow and has no output schema or annotations. The description does not explain prerequisites, failure modes, required credentials, or the nature of the 'flow,' leaving the agent under-informed about how to invoke it correctly in real contexts.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about 'anchorDomain' or 'publicKey' beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 states a specific action ('Perform SEP-10 challenge signing flow') and a distinct output ('return JWT token'). This clearly identifies the tool as the Stellar SEP-10 authentication flow and distinguishes it from every sibling tool, none of which perform SEP-10 auth or return a JWT.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It does not mention that this tool is for anchor authentication via SEP-10, when it should be preferred over other SEP tools, or what conditions must hold before calling it.

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