Buy Telegram Stars (single recipient)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool builds an order rather than directly purchasing, and that it returns messages for signing—an important behavioral nuance. It also mentions referrer extraction. It omits error cases or prerequisites, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 only two sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and each sentence adds value: what the tool does and what it returns. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 description gives a sufficient high-level view: it builds an order, returns signable messages, and mentions referrer extraction. Given the detailed schema and five parameters, the description doesn't need to explain every parameter. It could mention that this is a pre-confirmation step, but the reference to signing with @ton/mcp covers that.

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 fully documents each parameter (amount, wallet, payToken, recipient, referrer). The description adds only a context about referrer extraction, which complements the schema but doesn't significantly expand on parameter meaning beyond what is already present.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Build an order to send Stars to one Telegram user.' It distinguishes from the bulk sibling by emphasizing 'one Telegram user' and explicitly notes the output ('Returns messages[] to sign with @ton/mcp'), which is a specific and concrete outcome.

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?

It indicates the tool is for a single recipient, differentiating it from the bulk variant. It also provides a usage hint: 'Extract a referrer from the user's prompt if they named one.' However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool (e.g., multiple recipients) or name alternative tools, though the context makes it clear.

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