stellar_submit_payment

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

No annotations are provided, so the full burden falls on the description. It discloses that the tool submits a transaction and returns a hash, but it does not mention that this is a state-changing, irreversible action that moves funds, may require signing or authorization, or can fail due to insufficient funds or invalid sequences. Key behavioral traits are missing.

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 tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and states the key return value. There is no redundancy or filler; every part is relevant.

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 5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain whether the tool constructs or signs the transaction, what prerequisites exist (e.g., funded account, trustline), how errors are reported, or the format of the returned hash. An agent would have to make many assumptions.

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%, and the parameters are individually documented (e.g., 'Destination account public key (G...)' and 'Asset descriptor: native or credit with code+issuer'). The description adds no supplementary parameter context, but the schema already carries this information, so a baseline 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 and resource: 'Submit a Stellar payment transaction' and clearly states the primary output ('return the transaction hash'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like stellar_submit_fee_bump_transaction and stellar_create_trustline by focusing specifically on a payment transaction.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, exclusions, or related tools such as stellar_submit_fee_bump_transaction or stellar_get_transaction_meta. An agent is left to infer the usage context solely from the tool name and generic wording.

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