stellar_sep6_transfer

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Initiate' signals an action, but the description does not disclose that this contacts an external anchor, requires a SEP-10 JWT, may be asynchronous, or has side effects on anchor-managed accounts. This is a meaningful gap for a financial transfer tool.

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 focused sentence with no filler. 'Initiate', 'SEP-6', 'programmatic', and 'deposit or withdrawal' all carry relevant information, and the key operation type is front-loaded.

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?

SEP-6 is a complex external-anchor flow with prerequisites (SEP-10 authentication), routing details, and likely asynchronous follow-up, yet the description is only one sentence. It does not mention return behavior, next steps, or when to prefer SEP-6 over the many sibling SEP tools, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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 documents all seven parameters including the type enum and token/auth details. The description adds essentially no parameter-level meaning, but because the schema covers parameters thoroughly, 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 names a specific verb ('Initiate'), a specific protocol resource ('SEP-6'), and the exact operation scope ('deposit or withdrawal'). 'Programmatic' usefully hints at a non-interactive flow, distinguishing it from siblings like stellar_sep24_interactive without requiring schema inspection.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose SEP-6 versus sibling flows such as SEP-24 interactive, SEP-31 remittance, or SEP-12 onboarding. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions mentioned, so the agent must infer usage context from the tool name and sibling list.

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