stellar_soroban_read_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It communicates that this is a ledger read with no transaction simulation, which implies read-only behavior, but it does not mention error behavior, what happens when the key is absent, or whether any network state can change. The core behavior is clear but the transparency is incomplete.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, resource, and key distinguishing negative in under 20 words.

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 input schema is rich and the operation is simple, but there is no output schema and the description does not describe the return value or error cases. For an agent invoking a read tool, knowing what comes back (value shape, ScVal representation, absence handling) would make this more complete.

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 contractId, keyType, keyValue, and durability. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the term 'contract data entry', which is acceptable given the schema's 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 precise action ('read the state'), a specific resource ('specific contract data entry'), and a direct-from-ledger method, which distinguishes it from transaction simulation. An agent can tell this apart from stellar_soroban_simulate and stellar_soroban_invoke without opening the schema.

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?

'Directly from the ledger without simulating a transaction' gives clear context for when to use this tool instead of simulation-based paths. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state exclusions, but the intended use is strongly implied.

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