Buy Telegram Stars for many recipients

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It usefully reveals that the tool returns messages[] to sign with @ton/mcp rather than executing directly, and that it creates a single consolidated order. It does not mention prerequisites like an active session wallet, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding the key output behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool has no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (messages[]) and the single-transaction aspect. It is slightly light on preconditions like wallet setup, but the complexity level and sibling context make it sufficiently complete for correct selection and invocation.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with thorough descriptions, including enums, minimums, and array bounds. The main description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only clarifying that the same amount applies to all recipients, which is expected. 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 explicitly states the tool builds one order to send the same star amount to 1–10 users, clearly distinguishing it from the single-recipient hoton_buy_stars sibling. The verb 'Build' and the scope '1–10' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies the bulk use case for multiple recipients, and the 1–10 range signals when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like hoton_buy_stars for single recipients or state exclusions, though the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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