stellar_sep31_remittance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says the tool 'initiates' a payment. It does not disclose that this is a financial/state-changing operation, what side effects occur, what authentication or prerequisite setup is required, or whether any response or asynchronous status is returned.

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 concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though it errs on the side of under-specification rather than being a model of rich, structured tool documentation.

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 this is a complex SEP-31 payment operation with eight parameters, seven required, a nested fields object, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-line description is not nearly complete enough. An agent is left without critical context about the SEP-31 flow, required SEP-10/SEP-12 prerequisites, expected response behavior, or how this differs from the many related Stellar and SEP tools.

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 eight parameters and their meanings. The description adds no additional parameter context, such as how senderId/receiverId relate to SEP-12 or how fields carries routing details, keeping this at the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 ('Initiate...') and resource ('SEP-31 cross-border remittance payment'), making the tool's basic purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from overlapping siblings like stellar_submit_payment or the other SEP flows, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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 such as stellar_submit_payment, stellar_sep6_transfer, or stellar_sep24_interactive. There are no preconditions, exclusions, or routing cues beyond the protocol name itself, so an agent must infer applicability from the tool name.

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